fl 


f    .. 


I 


>^./^/o5T 


§rom  f^e  Eifirarg  of 

(professor  ^amuef  (gftiffer 

in  (Jttemorp  of 

3uoge  ^amuef  (JJtiffer  Q&recftinribge 

flftesenfeb  6p 

^amuef  (Jttiffet  QSrecliinrtoge  feong 

fo  f  0e  &i6rarg  of 

(princefon  2#eofogtcaf  ^eminarg 


2X    , 


x 


pi  '^*'  ■" 


/■ 


h 


3 


5 


I 

c 


CONTROVERSY 


BETWEEN    THB 


7 

Rev.  JOHN  HLCiHES,  of*  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 


AND    THE 

t 

Rev.  JOHN  BRECKINRID&E,  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 

RELATIVE  TO  THE    EXISTING   DIFFERENCES  IN  THE 

ROMAN    CATHOLIC    AND    PROTESTANT 

RELIGIONS. 


ORIGINALLY  PUBLISHED  IN  THE  "PRESBYTERIAN.' 


JOSEPH  WHETHAM,  22  SOUTH  FOURTH  STREET. 

1833. 


CATHOLIC  CONTROVERSY. 


Preliminary  Correspondence. 


The  following  letters,  &c.  now  published 
by  consent  of  parties,  will  explain  to  the 
community  the  origin,  nature,  and  object 
of  the  discussion  which  is  to  ensue.  It 
has  on  the  whole  been  thought  best  to  pub- 
lish the  entire  correspondence;  and  it  is 
hoped  that  a  sufficient  apology  for  its  great 
length  will  be  found  in  the  consideration, 
that  the  respective  letters  in  the  order  in 
which  they  were  written,  constitute  the 
best  history  of  the  whole  case. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir. — I  have  perused  your  article 
on  the  Roman  Catholic  controversy  publish- 
ed in  the  Christian  Advocate,  and  feel  that 
you  have  been  neither  just  nor  ingenuous 
in  your  observations.  I  am  the  more  sur- 
prised at  this,  because  those  who  know  you, 
ascribe  to  you  many  of  those  qualities  of 
mind  and  feeling,  which  constitute  or  adorn 
fhe  scholar  and  the  gentleman. 

Throughout  the  article  you  seem  to  re- 
g.  et  that  your  antagonist  is  not  an  "accre- 
dited" or  responsible  authority  on  the  sub- 
ject— And  hence  you  say  '-'There  are 
Priests  and  Bishops,  &c.  We  are  prepared 
to  meet  any  of  them,  on  the  broad  field  of 
this  important  and  vital  discussion  ;  and 
hereby  make  this  disposition  known." 

Now,  Sir,  I  am  equally  ready  to  accept 
this  challenge — let  it  only  be  conducted  in 
a  spirit  of  Christian  charity,  and  of  sincere 
inquiry  after  truth.  Of  course  it  will  be 
necessary  to  define  certain  rules  and  condi- 
tions by  which  we  may  understand  our- 
selves and  each  other,  in  the  discussion  of 
the  question. 

I  hope  you  will  find  in  the  publicity  of 
your  challenge  a  sufficient  apology  for  the 
liberty  I  take  in  addressing  you.  I  shall 
be  ready  to  receive  any  communication  you 
may  make  on  this  subject,  and  shall  be  ac- 

A 


commodating  as  to  the  time,  place,  manner, 
and  circumstance  of  bringing  this  topic 
fairly  before  the  public. 

Yours  very  respectfully, 
Oct.  3d,  1832.  Jno.  Hughes. 

Philadelphia,  October  13tA,  1832. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — Your  communication  of  the  3d 
inst.  was  duly  received;  and  I  have  used 
the  earliest  opportunity,  which  my  present 
unsettled  life  allowed  me,  in  giving  the  ne- 
cessary attention  to  its  contents. 

I  am  gratified  to  find  that  in  your  esti- 
mate of  my  character,  you  differ  from 
"those  who  know  me."  If,  as  you  con- 
cede, they  are  pleased  to  ascribe  to  me 
'many  of  the  qualities  of  mind  and  feeling 
which  constitute  or  adorn  the  scholar  and 
the  gentleman,"  I  leave  you  to  determine, 
whether  I  ought  to  be  more  gratified  by 
their  judgment,  or  distressed  at  yours. 

I  confess,  however,  that  I  am  not  a  little 
surprised,  to  find  you  speaking  of  my  letter 
published  in  the  Christian  Advocate  on  the 
Roman  Catholic  controversy,  as  embracing 
an  original  challenge,  while  charging  upon 
me,  the  want  of  ingenuousness.  By  a  re- 
ference to  the  introduction  and  close  of  that 
publication,  you  will  find  that  this  contro- 
versy was  forced  upon  me;  and  that  my 
reply  did  not  originate  the  discussion  or 
embrace  a  challenge,  but  attempted  to  trans- 
fer a  challenge  already  given,  to  more  equal 
and  elevated  ground,  and  to  identify  the  in- 
vestigation, with  the  best  lights,  and  sanc- 
tioned defenders  of  your  faith. 

And  now,  Sir,  allow  me  to  say,  that  it 
gives  me  hearty  pleasure  to  find  you  dis- 
posed, in  a  manly  form,  to  meet  the  ques- 
tion at  issue  between  Protestants  and  Ro- 
manists; while  at  the  same  time  I  fully 
respond  to  the  wish  expressed  in  your  let- 
ter that  any  controversy  which  may  here- 
after be  undertaken,   "may  be  conducted 


( 


11 


) 


in  a  spirit  of  Christian  charity,  and  of  sin- 
cere inquiry  after  truth." 

As  what  you  have  been  pleased  to  style 
my  challenge,  was  a  written  reply,  to  a 
previous  communication  which  was  also 
written,  so  a  written  answer,  from  an  ac- 
credited respondent  was  requested.  The 
obvious  course  therefore  for  you  to  pursue, 
in  meeting  the  spirit  of  this  requirement, 
is  to  respond  from  the  press,  to  the  contents 
of  my  letter  which  is  now  widely  circu- 
lated through  the  country.  And  I,  in  my 
place  shall,  by  the  grace  of  God,  stand  pre- 
pared to  give  your  communication  prompt 
and  appropriate  attention. 

The  terms  in  which  you  speak  of  ar- 
rangements for  discussion,  "defining  rules 
and  conditions,"  are  not  explicit.  If  the 
above  suggestion,  therefore  does  not  meet 
your  wishes,  I  shall  be  gratified  to  have 
them  more  fully  expressed,  as  to  the  best 
method  of  using  the  press  to  reach  the  de- 
sired end.  And  that  you  may  be  assured 
of  my  sincerity,  and  entire  readiness  to  in- 
vestigate this  great  and  vital  subject,  I  use 
this  occasion  to  say,  that  there  are  several 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  this  city  and  vi- 
cinity, who  stand  prepared  with  me,  to  meet 
yourself,  and  number  any  of  your  clergy 
that  may  be  disposed  to  unite  with  you,  in 
any  way  most  agreeable  to  yourselves,  that 
is  consistent  with  the  grave  and  sacred  na- 
ture of  the  theme. 

I  am  yours,  very  respectfully, 

John  Breckinridge. 


The  following  rules  were  next  sent  to 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Breckinridge,  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Hughes. 

Whereas  the  undersigned  have  agreed  to 
enter  on  an  amicable  discussion  of  the  great 
points  of  religious  controversy  between 
Catholics  and  Protestants, — and  whereas 
such  discussion  cannot  prove  either  profit- 
able to  the  parties  concerned,  or  edifying 
to  the  public  at  large,  unless  they  are  con- 
ducted in  the  language  of  decorum,  and 
in  a  spirit  of  Christian  politeness, — and 
whereas  this  object  is  best  attained  by  ad- 
herence to  certain  rules,  and  conditions  mu- 
tually agreed  to,  therefore,  the  following 
shall  be  the  rules  of  said  discussion,  to  the 
observance  of  which,  each  of  the  parties 
hereby  binds  himself: 


1st.  We  agree  respectively  to  adhere 
strictly  to  the  subject  of  discussion,  for  the 
time  being:  and  to  admit  no  second  ques- 
tion until  the  first  shall  have  been  exhausted. 

2d.  Each  of  the  parties  shall  be  the  ac- 
credited interpreter  of  his  own  religion. 
And  neither  shall  have  the  right  to  ascribe 
to  his  adversary,  doctrines  or  explanations 
of  doctrines  which  the  latter  disclaims. 

3d.  The  parties  shall  write  and  publish 
alternately  in  the  same  paper,  never  allow- 
ing any  communication  to  exceed  two  co- 
lumns. 

4th.  The  controversy  shall  commence  by 
a  discussion  of  the  rule  of  faith,  to  prevent 
it  from  becoming  interminable  and  useless. 
Signed  John  Hughes. 

October  23 d,  1832. 

Philadelphia,  November  7th,  ]  832. 
The  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — I  received  by  the  hand  of  your 
friend  on  the  26th  ultimo,  a  series  of  rules 
proposed  by  you  as  the  basis  of  "an  ami- 
cable discussion  of  the  great  points  of  reli- 
gious controversy  between  (Roman)  Catho- 
lics and  Protestants."  When  you  called 
upon  me  yesterday,  I  informed  you  that  I 
preferred  to  settle  the  preliminaries  of  the 
proposed  discussion  in  writing ;  and  that 
although  my  answer  to  your  proposals,  had 
been  delayed  by  my  absence  from  town,  as 
well  as  other  causes,  beyond  my  control, 
yet  it  was  then  in  readiness  to  be  sent, 
needing  transcription  only.  In  the  ex- 
tended conversation  which  was  at  your  par- 
ticular request  then  entered  into,  my  ob- 
jections to  your  rules  were  then  stated  at 
large.  I  need  not  now  repeat  more  than 
the  substance  of  what  was  communicated 
then:  viz.  1.  Your  proposals  are  entirely 
silent  as  to  any  rejoinder  to  my  letter  in  the 
Christian  Advocate,  though  in  that  you  find 
the  avowed  reason  of  addressing  me  on  this 
subject,  and  though  it  contains  a  number 
of  objections  to  your  system  of  faith,  and 
morals,  to  which  answers  are  requested. 
2.  The  manner  in  which  you  propose  to 
conduct  the  discussion,  (rule  3d,)  seems 
very  insufficient,  breaking  up,  as  it  must 
do  into  so  many  fractions,  every  leading 
question,  and  requiring  so  much  time  to 
reach  any  adequate  result.  Besides,  you 
are  local,  and  may  be  always  at  hand 
to  attend  upon  the  continually  recurring 


( 


111 


) 


details  of  a  controversy  carried  on  in  the 
columns  of  a  daily  paper,   for   such  you 
seemed,  in  your  conversation  yesterday,  to 
prefer.     But  my  present  pursuits  (I  will 
not  say  that  they  were  known  to  you   in 
making  out  this  rule)  lead  me  to  every 
part  of  our  country,  and  frequently  after 
very  short  notice.     3.    Soma  of  the  rules 
are  unfair.      I  speak  not  of  your  intention, 
but  of  their  tendency.     See,  for  example, 
rule  third.      This  rule  will  put  it  in  your 
power  by  a  forced  construction  to  suspend 
all  argument  on  any  question  by  a  private 
explanation    or   special    disclaimer.      The 
symbols,  decrees,  bulls,  and  approved  wri- 
ters of  the  Church  of  Rome,  are  now  be- 
fore the  world,  and  many  of  them   have 
been  extant  for  ages.      The  distinguishing 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation  and  the  stand- 
ards of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  have  also 
been  fully  published  to  mankind.      While 
due  weight  should   be  conceded  to  our  re- 
spective explanations,  yet  the  discussion  of 
these  doctrines  must  proceed  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  honest  interpretation.     I  feel  the 
more  constrained  to   be  explicit  here,  be- 
cause you  charge  me  with  being  both  un- 
'ust  and  disingenuous  in  the  statements  of 
my  published   letter,  though  they  are   all 
founded  in  acknowledged   facts,  and  most 
of  them  on  the  authority  of  your  standing 
symbols    or   accredited  writers.      I   must 
also  add   that  the  explanations  of  this  rule 
given  by  you  yesterday  were  not  .satisfac- 
tory.    Again,  the  4th  rule,  as  interpreted 
by  you  yesterday,  would  appear  to  intimate 
that  our  discussion  must  stop,  if  we  cannot 
agree  on  the  rule  of  faith.     The  tendency 
then  will   be   to  narrow  the  argument  to 
this  single   question.      For  it  is  not  very 
probable,  however  others  may  be  affected 
by  our  controversy,  that  either  of  us  will 
be  convinced  by  the  other. 

In  the  deliberate  review  of  these  rules, 
my  conclusion  as  communicated  to  you 
verbally  in  our  recent  interview  is,  that 
your  alternative  properly  is,  either  to  an- 
swer my  published  letter,  or  to  meet  me 
in  a  public  oral  discussion,  of  all  the  lead- 
ing subjects  on  which  we  differ. 

You  have,  however,  declined  to  adopt 
either  of  these  methods;  and  you  assume 
the  right  to  choose  the  manner  of  conduct- 
ing the  controversy,  upon  the  ground  that 
the  challenge  came  from  me.     This  I  dis- 


claim in  the  sense  in  which  you  use  it; 
and  refer  you  for  explanation  to  my  for- 
mer letter.  Yet,  that  you  may  have  no 
just  cause  for  attributing  to  me  the  failure 
of  the  proposed  discussion,  I  hereby  agree 
to  adopt  the  preamble,  with  the  1st,  3d, 
and  4th  rules — provided,  1.  That  after  the 
rule  of  faith,  shall  have  been  fairly  and 
fully  discussed,  other  topics,  to  be  agreed 
on  hereafter,  be  taken  up  in  order.  2. 
that  if  either  party  was  hindered  by  sick- 
ness or  inevitable  calls  to  be  absent,  the 
discussion  shall  for  the  time,  upon  due  no- 
tice being  given,  be  suspended ;  and  3. 
That  the  paper  called  "The  Presbyterian," 
published  in  this  city,  be  the  medium  of 
communication  with  the  public. 

It  is  my  expectation,  Providence  per- 
mitting, to  be  stationary,  either  in  Phila- 
delphia or  New  York,  for  some  months 
after  the  first  of  December.  In  the  inter- 
val,, though  several  short  journies  will  be 
necessary,  not  only  in  the  discharge  of  my 
official  duties,  but  also  to  prevent  the  in- 
terruption of  the  proposed  discussion  from 
that  quarter,  yet  any  communication  from 
you  will  receive  the  earliest  possible  atten- 
tion. I  remain  sir,  your  ob't  servant. 
John  Breckinridge. 

November  12th,  1832. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge, 

Sir, — In  your  letter  of  the  7th  inst.  you 
have  stated  at  length  your  ideas  on  the  pre- 
liminaries of  the  controversy  to  which  you 
had  challenged  the  "Priests  and  Bishops" 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  I  shall  briefly  no- 
tice in  order  all  those  parts  of  your  letter 
that  seem  to  require  attention. 

You  begin  with  setting  forth  that  I  should 
issue  a  rejoinder  to  your  letter.  To  this  I 
reply  that  the  challenge  is  general,  cover- 
ing the  whole  of  the  disputed  ground,  and 
consequently  an  acceptance  of  it  requires 
that  we  should  commence  with  the  begin- 
ning. Secondly,  you  object  to  the  manner 
of  conducting  it,  (as  indicated  in  rule  3d,) 
and  hint  that  lam  "local,"  and  you  ob- 
liged to  travel,  this  rule  would  give  me 
decided  advantage.  Now,  so  far  as  this 
rule  restricts  us  to  two  columns  and  alter- 
nate communication,  I  hereby  agree  to 
withdraw  it;  leaving  you  free  on  that  sub- 
ject. But  with  regard  to  your  "present 
pursuits,"  I  am  surprised  that  you  allude 


( 


iv 


) 


to  them,  since  you  know  that  they  are  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  when  you  published 
your  challenge. 

You  say  the  2d  rule  is  unfair.  This 
must  be  owing  to  your  misapprehension  of 
its  meaning.  I  will  submit  another  in  its 
stead  at  the  close  of  this  letter,  in  which  1 
trust  you  will  find  nothing  "  unfair. " 

Rule  4th,  you  have  adopted  with  a  pro- 
vision to  which  I  agree.  Your  second  pro- 
vision had  reference  to  that  part  of  the  3d 
rule  which  you  objected  to,  and  which  I 
have  agreed  to  withdraw. 

The  only  difficulty  that  remains,  has  re- 
ference to  the  medium  of  communication 
with  the  public.  I  cannot  consent  to  its 
being  "the  paper  called  The  Presbyte- 
rian." If  we  are  to  be  judged  by  the  pub- 
lic, it  must  be  by  the  public  generally,  and 
not  by  a  sectarian  fragment  of  the  commu- 
nity— which  is  itself  a  party  in  the  contro- 
versy. If  I  agreed  to  that  provision  what 
would  be  my  situation?  Why,  I  should 
have  a  Presbyterian  antagonist,  Presbyte- 
rian judges,  and  receive  my  license  to  pub- 
lish in  every  case,  at  the  hand  of  a  Presby- 
terian Editor!  This  Sir,  is  asking  too 
much: — and  is  not  in  good  keeping  with 
that  courage  which  prompted  you  to  chal- 
lenge "Priests  and  Bishops"  to  the  discus- 
sion of  these  vital  points  before  the  public. 
Upon  a  review  of  your  letter  and  my 
own,  I  find  that  we  are  agreed  upon  the 
preamble  and  the  first  rule  without 
amendment.  Let  the  second  be  expressed 
as  follows: 

"Rule  2.  The  question  shall  be  confined 
to  those  points  of  doctrine  and  morals 
which  are  admitted  by  the  parties,  or 
found  in  the  Symbols,  Decrees,  Bulls, 
Catechisms,  approved  writers,  Standards, 
and  Confessions  of  Faith,  of  the  churches 
to  which  the  parties  respectively  belong. 
And  such  points  shall  in  all  cases  be  stated 
in  the  precise  words  or  literal  translation 
of  the  document  from  which  they  are  ex- 
tracted, and  the  reference  given." 

If  you  agree  to  this,  and  will  adopt  the 
natural,  obvious,  and  impartial  medium  of 
a  public  newspaper — then  am  I  ready  to 
answer  your  challenge.  If  you  prefer  an 
oral  discussion  under  the  guidance  of  these 
rules,  let  it  be  in  the  presence  of  twelve 
enlightened  gentlemen  neither  Catholics 
nor  Presbyterians — and  again  I  am  ready. 


But  I  cannot  consent  to  exhibit  myself  as  a 
theological  gladiator  for  the  amusement  of 
an  idle,  promiscuous,  curious  multitude. 

This,  Sir,  is  my  last  private  communi- 
cation on  the  subject.  I  shall  await  your 
decision  on  this  letter.  If  you  decline 
every  thing  I  have  proposed,  then,  it 
strikes  me,  that  consistency  and  candor 
will  suggest  to  you  the  propriety  of  offer- 
ing a  public  apology  for  your  challenge,  at 
least  some  explanation  of  the  private  cir- 
cumstances which  tempted  you  to  publish 
it,  and  to  wear  laurels  without  the  trouble 
of  deserving  them. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

John  Hughes. 

Philadelphia,  December  3d,  1832. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — As  I  intimated  to  you  in  my  last 
communication,  I  hope  to  be  located  in  this 
city  or  New  York,  for  the  chief  part  of  the 
winter,  and  to  enjoy  sufficient  rest  to  give 
you  some  attention.  Having  returned 
home  on  the  evening  of  Nov.  29th,  I  now 
send  my  answer  to  your  letter  of  Novem- 
ber the  12th. 

If  the  cause  you  advocate  is  to  be  mea- 
sured by  the  spirit  of  your  reply,  then  it 
is  still  worse  than  I  had  even  supposed  it. 
The  dignity  and  Christian  decorum  with 
which  you  professed  yourself  desirous  of 
conducting  the  proposed  controversy,  have, 
I  regret  to  say,  strangely  disappeared  in 
the  progress  of  our  preliminary  correspon- 
dence, giving  place  to  severe  invective, 
ungenerous  taunts,  and  bad  temper.  If  I 
patiently  lend  myself  to  these  uses,  the 
public  will  at  least  not  think  me  aspiring; 
and  the  laurels  which  you  suppose  me  so 
desirous  of  possessing,  without  having  won, 
will  scarcely  be  worth  wearing.  But  in- 
deed, Sir,  you  mistake  me  in  supposing 
that  I  wish  to  wear  laurels.  I  desire  vic- 
tory for  the  truth  of  God,  and  the  crown 
for  Him  whose  right  it  is  to  rule — and 
whose  prerogative  has  been  usurped  by 
him  "who,  seated  as  God  in  the  temple 
of  God,  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is 
called  God."  As  this  will  probably  be  my 
last  communication  to  you  in  this  way,  it 
is  perhaps  my  duty  once  more,  explicitly 
to  state  the  grounds  on  which  we  respec- 
tively stand  in  the  matter  now  at  issue  be- 
tween us. 


( 


) 


Some  two  years  since,  (while  a  resident 
in  Baltimore,)  I  was  singled  out  without 
provocation,  by  one  of  your  leading  lay- 
men, and  required  to  write  a  reply  to  his 
strictures,  on  a  Protestant  work,   with  the 
alternative   of  appearing    to    an    esteemed 
member  of  the  church  of  which  I  was  pas- 
tor,  (who  had  been  perplexed  by  his  sub- 
tlety, and  was  referred  to  me  for  a  reply,) 
to  be  unable  to  defend   our  avowed   faith. 
I  chose  to  reply  in  writing,  and  at  the  close, 
called  for  a  written  rejoinder  to  a  number 
of  objections  stated  in  the  reply  ;   and  in- 
sisted on  one  from  a  responsible  author — 
stating  my  readiness  at  the  same  time,  in 
view  of  these  "  objections,"  to  meet  such  a 
person  on  the  whole  field  of  controversy 
between  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants. 
In  the  autumn  of  this  year  I  published  that 
letter — impelled  to  it  in  part  by  the  fre- 
quent, and  sometimes  insolent  attacks  that 
were  made  upon  the  Protestant  churches — 
and    in  part,    by  the   very  unwarrantable 
course  pursued  at  the  consecration  of  the 
house  of  worship  in  which  you   officiate. 
You  professed  to  believe  yourself  (among 
others)  challenged  by  me  originally  in  this 
publication  ;  and  you  take  advantage  of  that 
assumption  to  fix  the  terms,  according  to 
which,    and    which    alone,    the  discussion 
must  be  conducted.     I  proposed  to  you  the 
obvious  and  ordinary  course,  at  once  the 
most  refined  and  best  adapted  to  make  per- 
manent and  wide  impressions  on  the  public 
mind — that  you  should  reply  to  my  letter 
in  a  connected  form,  from  the  press — pro- 
mising to  write  again  in  answer  when  ne- 
cessary.    This  you  entirely  and  repeatedly 
declined,  for  reasons,  whose  weight  an  im- 
partial community  will  not  find  it  difficult 
to  estimate.     I  offered  you  the  option  of  a 
public  oral  discussion.      From  this  also  you 
retreat — and  urge  in  their  stead  the  use  of 
the  daily  poll Heal  press — and  yet  you  ob- 
ject to  the  oral  discussion  on  the  ground 
that  you  "cannot  consent  to  exhibit  your- 
self as  a  theological  gladiator,  for  the 
amusement  of  an  idle,  promiscuous,  cu- 
rious multitude  /"      How   you   can   see 
so   much   unsuitableness    in    one  of  these 
forms,  and  none  in  the  other,  I  am  at  a  loss 
to  discover.     In   view  of  your  unmoved 
determination  to  proceed  in  your  own  way, 
I  proposed  the  pages  of  a  weekly  religious 
paper— and  having  no  connexion  with  your 


papers,  I  did  all  I  could,  offered  one  of 
ours,  expecting  you  to  reciprocate  the  ar- 
rangement. I  was  led  to  this  course  the 
more  by  the  conversation  which  you  held 
with  the  Assistant  Secretary  in  our  office 
before  my  arrival,  and  by  the  communica- 
tions which  passed  between  us,  on  this  sub- 
ject. The  paragraph  therefore  in  which 
you  resent  my  otter  of  "The  Presbyte- 
rian," is  truly  surprising  to  me,  being,  as 
I  recollect,  wholly  at  variance  with  the 
spirit  manifested  by  you,  in  our  interview! 
Did  you  not  then  entertain  the  idea,  that 
the  religious  periodical  presses  of  our  res- 
pective denominations,  might  be  properly 
and  effectually  used,  if  they  could  be  ob- 
tained, to  carry  on  this  investigation  before 
the  public  ?  And  yet  now,  when  the  idea 
is  matured,  you  charge  me  with  dishonor- 
able proposals  !  Your  proposition  to  meet 
me  before  twelve  gentlemen  is  quite  amus- 
ing, especially  in  view  of  your  desire  to 
use  a  daily  paper  on  account  of  its  publicity. 

You  say,  "I  am  surprised  that  you 
allude  to  your  present  pursuits,  since  you 
know  that  they  are  precisely  the  same  as 
when  you  published  your  challenge.^ 
Now,  if  when  I  published  my  letter  I  had 
proposed  as  my  plan  of  controversy,  alter- 
nate pieces  in  a  daily  paper,  and  then 
when  challenged  by  you  on  that  plan,  and 
plead  as  a  reason  for  declining  it,  my  pre- 
sent pursuits,  though  still  the  same,  there 
would  have  been  reason  in  your  remark  ; 
but  the  case  is  this,  you  know  now,  if  not 
before,  that  my  pursuits  prevent  me  from 
being  long  local;  when,  therefore,  you  pro- 
pose and  insist  on  a  plan  not  only  puerile, 
but  which  you  know  I  could  not  adopt,  is 
it  I,  or  you,  who  shrink  from  the  manly 
meeting  of  the  question  ? 

Still  more,  your  posture  as  to  my  pub- 
lished letter,  gives  you  no  exclusive  right 
above  me  to  decide  on  the  method  of  dis- 
cussion, it  being  only  a  transfer  to  another 
person,  of  a  controversy  which  I  did  not 
originate.  And  still  more,  while  my  letter 
was  in  progress  through  the  press,  and  (as 
I  think,)  that  point  which  contained  "  the 
challenge,"  was  not  yet  published,  you  did 
attack  Protestant  ministers  in  a  daily  paper 
of  this  city,  in  a  most  unwarrantable  and 
injurious  manner. 

As  to  the  rule  substituted  by  you  for  rule 
2d,  to  which  I  had  objected,  I  still  decline 


( 


vi 


) 


it.  It  is  both  unusual  and  uncandid,  to 
propose  it  in  the  form  and  terms  which  you 
use.  I  wish  to  be  fair  but  free  in  my  argu- 
ment, and  extend  to  you  the  same  right. 
If  we  misinterpret,  or- misquote,  or  bring 
bad  authority,  let  it  be  shown  in  the  dis- 
cussion, it  will  injure  only  him  who  does  it. 
And  now,  Sir,  this  is  also  my  last  pri- 
vate communication  in  this  way.  I  have 
therefore  to  say  in  conclusion,  if  you  will 
secure  a  weekly  Roman  Catholic  paper,  as 
I  have  the  Protestant  paper  already  named 
by  me,  I  will  agree  to  write  and  publish, 
simultaneously,  in  alternate  weeks,  with 
you,  our  respective  pieces,  until  we  have 
done ;  or  if  you  can  obtain  the  use,  week 
after  week,  of  some  respectable  paper  de- 
voted to  religion  and  literature,  which  is 
neither  Roman  Catholic  nor  Presbyterian, 
I  will  promptly  acquiesce.  In  the  event 
of  your  accepting  this  last  offer,  I  am  pre- 
pared to  have  a  personal  interview  with  you 
to  settle  the  remaining  particulars  of  the  ar- 
rangement, it  being  understood  that  I  still 
agree  to  your  rules,  as  qualified  by  this  and 
any  previous  letter.  If,  however,  you  de- 
cline this,  having  declined  the  fair  and 
scholar-like  method  of  a  connected  answer 
from  the  press  ;  having  declined  a  public 
and  oral  discussion  ;  and  having  entrenched 
yourself  in  the  columns  of  a  daily  political 
paper,  which  can  never  afford  room  for  a 
full  discussion,  is  no  fit  place  for  such  a 
discussion,  and  is  a  plan  for  any  length  of 
time,  to  your  knowledge,  incompatible 
with  my  "present  pursuits,"  I  shall  feel 
called  on  in  duty,  as  well  as  justified  in  right 
to  publish  this  correspondence,  and  to  begin 
a  series  of  letters  through  the  press  to  the 
public  on  the  subjects  which  divide  Protes- 
tants from  Roman  Catholics.  When  you 
demand  an  apology,  you  forget  the  age  and 
the  land  in  which  we  live.  My  "apology" 
for  writing  and  publishing  my  letter,  so  far 
as  not  already  given,  shall,  with  God's  help, 
be  seen  in  a  public  vindication  of  divine 
truth,  and  of  the  rights  of  man  against  a 
system,  which,  in  my  humble  judgment,  is 
at  war  with  both. 

I  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

John  Breckinridge. 

Philadelphia,  December  Uh,  1832. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Sir, — The  object  of  the  present  letter  is 


to  intimate,  before  you  commence  the  pub- 
lication of  our  correspondence,  that  I  agree 
to  the  proposals  you  have  made,  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  the  disputed  grounds 
of  controversy  between  Catholics  and 
Presbyterians  fairly  before  the  public. 

In  your  letter  of  yesterday  you  allude  to 
the  offer  you  had  made  of  the  columns  of 
"The  Presbyterian,"  and  to  my  having 
declined  it,  in  a  tone  of  triumph,  which 
my  reasons  for  declining  were  somewhat 
calculated  to  subdue.  However  you  are 
pleased  to  overlook  those  reasons;  and 
since  you  decline  every  mode  suggested  by 
me,  I  will  even  meet  you  in  your  own  pro- 
posals— and  hereby  signify  my  acceptance 
of  the  same. 

Of  course  "The  Presbyterian"  will  con- 
tinue to  publish  until  one  or  the  other  of  us, 
think  proper  to  decline  the  contest.  I,  on 
my  part,  shall  have  the  whole  re-published 
in  one  of  our  papers,  so  that  the  Catholics 
may  receive  the  enlightenment  of  your  ar- 
guments. 

I  must,  however,  enter  my  protest  against 
your  rejection  of  the  2d  Rule,  as  explained 
in  my  last  letter,  The  "mens  conscia  rec- 
ti," has  nothing  to  dread  from  its  operation. 

Now,  Sir,  you  may  proceed  with  the 
publication  of  our  correspondence;  and  as 
soon  as  it  shall  have  appeared,  I  will  open 
the  controversy  by  addressing  a  letter  to 
you  through  the  columns  of  "The  Presby- 
terian" on  the  "Rule  of  Faith"  as  already 
agreed  upon.  Yours,  very  respectfully, 
Jno.  Hughes. 

Philadelphia,  December  6th,  1832. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

Sir, — I  am  truly  gratified  that  we  can  so 
far  agree,  at  last,  as  to  have  the  prospect  of 
beginning  promptly,  the  proposed  discus- 
sion. In  my  last  letter,  I  suggested  a  per- 
sonal interview,  in  order  to  settle  some  of 
the  details  of  the  controversy — such  as  the 
question  to  be  investigated — the  order — the 
quantity  of  matter  from  week  to  week, 
&c.  &c.  It  is  understood  of  course  that  the 
particular  paper  furnished  on  your  part,  is 
regularly  pledged  to  reciprocate  the  ar- 
rangement made  by  "The  Presbyterian," 
in  a  weekly  re-publication.  My  determi- 
nation to  publish  our  correspondence  was 
suspended  upon  the  event  of  your  declining 
the  terms  offered  to  you  in  my  last  letter. 


f 


Til 


) 


I  am  pleased  however  that  you  consent  to 
the  publication — as  the  letters  themselves 
will  best  explain  the  nature  and  origin  of 
the  pending  controversy. 

I  propose,  in  fine,  an  interview  to-mor- 
row morning,  in  the  presence  of  two  mu- 
tual friends,  if  you  please,  at  such  lime  as 
may  be  most  convenient  to  yourself. 
I  am  your  obedient  servant, 

John  Breckinridge. 


To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — I  regret  that  was  not  in  my 
power  to  see  you,  on  the  day  proposed  in 
your  last  letter,  for  the  purpose  of  arrang- 
ing those  particulars  to  which  you  very 
properly  allude. 

If  it  meet  your  views,  I  shall  be  very 
happy  to  see  you,  on  Monday  at  10  o'clock, 
A.  M.,  with  any  gentleman  you  may  think 
proper  to  bring,  at  my  dwelling  adjoining 
St.  John's  church.  If  the  hour  or  place 
be  inconvenient,  you  may  mention  any 
other,  and  I  shall  make  it  convenient  to  at- 
tend. But  sometime  on  Monday  will  suit 
me  best,  as  I  shall  be  obliged  to  go  out  of 
town  next  week,  and  shall  start,  probably, 
on  Tuesday  morning, 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

Dec.  8th,  1832.  Jno.  Hughes. 

The  proposed  meeting  took  place,  when 
the  following  agreement  was  made  between 
the  parties: 

The  undersigned,  agreeing  to  have  an  amicable  dis- 
cussion of  the  great  points  of  religious  controversy  be- 
tween Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics,  do  hereby 
bind  themselves  to  the  observance  of  the  following 
rules:  8 

1.  The  parties  shall  write  and  publish,  alternately,  in 
the  weekly  religious  papers  called  the  Presbyterian, 
and  a  Roman  Catholic  paper,  to  be  furnished  by  the 
first  of  January,  it  being  understood  that  Jhe  commu- 
nications shall  be  published  after  the  following  plan:— 
One  party  opening  the  first  week,  the  other  party  re- 
plying the  next  week,  and  every  piece  to  be  republish- 
ed in  the  immediately  succeeding  number  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  paper.  The  communications  not  to  exceed 
four  columns  of  the  Presbyterian,  nor  to  continue  be- 
yond  six  months,  without  consent  of  parties. 

2.  The  parties  agree  that  there  is  an  infallible  Rule 
ot  *aith  established  by  Christ,  to  guide  us  in  matters 
oi  religion,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  disputes  in 
the  Church  of  Christ. 

e \  Td6-V  moreover  agree,  that  after  giving  their  views 
ot  the  Rule  of  Faith,  they  shall  proceed  to  discuss  the 
question,  «  Is  the  Protestant  religion,  the  religion  of 
Christ?"  s 

4.  The  parties  agree  respectively,  to  adhere  strictly 
to  the  subject  of  discussion,  for  the  time  being,  and  to 


admit  no  second  question,  until  the  first  shall  have  been 
exhausted.  Each  party  shall  be  the  judge  when  he  is 
done  with  a  subject,  and  shall  be  at  liberty  to  occupy 
his  time  with  a  second  topic,  when  he  is  done  with  the 
first,  leaving  to  the  other  party  the  liberty  of  continuing 
to  review  the  abandoned  topic,  as  long  as  he  shall  chose; 
subject,  however,  to  be  answered,  if  he  introduce  new 
matter. 

5.  Mr.  Hughes  to  open  the  discussion,  and  Mr. 
Breckinridge  to  follow,  according  to  the  dictates  of  his 
own  judgment. 

John  Breckinridge, 
Jno.  Hughes. 

Philadelphia,  December  14th,  1832. 


Philadelphia,  December  "26th,  1832. 
The  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Bear  Sir, — In  the  correspondence  that 
has  taken  place  between  us,  you  must  have 
perceived  that  I  left  several  topics  unan- 
swered, in  as  much  as  they  had  no  imme- 
diate bearing  on  the  arrangements  of  the 
rules  by  which  the  controversy  was  to  be 
conducted.  On  those  topics  1  will  now 
make  a  few  observations. 

In  your  letter  of  the  3d  inst.  you  give  a 
statement  of  the  facts  connected  with  the 
origin  of  this  discussion,  which  I  am  not 
disposed  to  call  in  question,  because,  even 
admitting  them,  they  do  not  sustain  the 
conclusion  which  you  have  endeavoured  to 
build  upon  them.  Now  the  only  portion 
of  the  statement,  with  which  I  am  concern- 
ed, is  the  fact  that  in  the  ''Christian  Ad- 
vocate" for  August  and  September  of  this 
year,  you  published  a  letter  headed  "Ro- 
man Catholic  Controversy,"  which  on  pe- 
rusal I  found  to  contain  charges,  which  if 
they  were  true,  would  render  our  religion 
an  object  of  horror  to  all  good  men.  For 
example,  you  stated  on  the  authority  of 
Usher  and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  that  ac- 
cording to  our  belief,  irnages  representing 
Christ  are  to  be  adored,  as  Christ  himself. 
After  having  made  this  statement  and  given 
those  names  to  support  it,  you  ask  "What 
is  this?  Is  it  not  divine  worship  of  idols 
or  images — i.  e.  Idolatry  sanctioned  by 
standing  authors,  and  ordered  by  the  great 
accredited  counsel  of  Trent?" 

Who  this  Usher  is,  from  whom  you 
quote,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conjecture.  There 
is  an  author  of  that  name,  but  he  does  not 
possess  much  authority  with  Catholics,  for 
the  reason  that  he  happens  to  have  been  a 
protest ant  Archbishop.  But  no  matter  for 
his  testimony  :  the  main  point  is,  that  you, 
with  your  proper  signature,   charge  upon 


( 


Mil 


) 


Catholics  that  they  are  Idolaters,  by  doc- 
trine and  authority. 

You  next  charge  upon  them  what  you 
call  "legalized  immoralities,"  and  desig- 
nate the  doctrine  of  indulgences  as  "  a  bun- 
dle of  licenses  to  sin,  and  making  merchan- 
dise of  souls."  You  even  go  into  the  de- 
tail of  this  traffic,  and  tell  us  the  scale  of 
prices  on  which  crime  was  graduated — "for 
a  layman  murdering  a  layman  about  7s.  6d. ; 
for  killing  a  father,  mother,  wife,  or  sister, 
10s.  and  6d.."  &c.  page  392. 

Now,  Dear  Sir,  I  would  appeal  to  your- 
self, and  ask  whether  it  was  well  possible 
for  us,  desirous  to  share  in  the  good  opinion 
of  our  fellow  citizens,  to  let  such  charges, 
sanctioned  by  your  name,  go  forth  on  the 
wings  of  the  Press  to  every  village  and 
hamlet  in  the  land  without  claiming  a  hear- 
ing for  our  defence.  It  is  true  that  the 
charges  are,  in  themselves,  too  gross  and 
absurd  to  be  believed  by  men  of  enlighten- 
ed and  educated  minds.  But  when  pub- 
lished with  your  name,  when  published  in 
this  city,  when  published  with  a  direct,  ex- 
press, and  positive  call  on  the  "  Priests  and 
Bishops"  of  the  church  to  meet  you  in  the 
broad  field  of  this  important  and  vital  dis- 
cussion— then  the  case  is  changed ;  and  there 
is  no  alternative  left,  except  either  to  obey 
your  summons  to  the  field  of  controversy, 
or  allow  the  opposite  course  to  be  construed 
into  a  tacit  admission  of  the  charges  thus 
boldly  preferred.  Persons  were  already 
beginning  to  ask  the  question — "if  these 
accusations  are  unfounded,  why  do  not  some 
of  the  Catholic  clergy  deny  them,  or  meet 
Mr.  B.  in  the  field  of  controversy  to  which 
he  has  invited  them?  If  they  are  silent, 
when  such  charges,  sustained  by  a  respect- 
able name,  are  brought  against  their  reli- 
gion, what  are  we  to  infer  from  their  si- 
lence ?" 

It  was  in  this  stage  of  the  question,  that 
your  letter  was  brought  under  my  notice, 
and  the  circumstances  seemed  to  leave  no 
room  for  hesitation  as  to  the  course  to  be 
pursued .  The  charges  against  the  Catholic 
Religion,  and  the  challenge  addressed  to  its 
ministers,  were  clear  and  unequivocal.  Our 
readers,  then,  will  pronounce  whether  any 
Catholic  priest  or  bishop  has  been  the  as- 
sailant in  this  controversy,  or  whether  I, 
among  the  least  competent  of  them  to  un- 


dertake it,  should  not  be  considered  as  the 
party  standing  in  the  attitude  of  defence. 

It  is  true,  you  qualify  these  facts  and  con- 
clusions by  reverting  to  a  private  contro- 
versy between  a  Catholic  layman  and  a 
member  of  your  congregation  in  Baltimore; 
but  this  is  an  incident  of  ordinary  occur- 
rence, and  has  no  necessary  relation  except 
to  the  parties  immediately  concerned.  Your 
challenge — for  I  must  use  that  term  in  the 
absence  of  a  more  dignified  one — was  the 
same  when  addressed  to  the  young  lady  in 
Baltimore  that  it  now  is — except  that  the 
Priests  and  Bishops  of  the  Catholic  church 
whom  it  summoned  to  the  discussion  were 
entirely  ignorant  of  its  existence.  But  when 
you  spread  out  before  the  American  public 
the  elaborate  impeachment  of  their  doctrine 
and  morals  which  your  letter  contains,  then 
it  was  that  the  document  was  served  on  the 
parties  whom  it  arraigned,  and  the  public 
duly  advised  of  the  proceeding.  Do  not 
suppose  that  I  am  now  complaining  of  your 
proceedings  in  this  matter.  My  object  is 
different :  it  is  merely  to  show  by  a  state- 
ment of  the  facts,  that  view  it  on  what  side 
you  will,  every  aspect  determines  clearly 
our  relative  positions, — yours  as  the  assail- 
ant, and  mine,  as  the  assailed.  You  speak 
of  my  letter  addressed  to  the  Editor  of  the 
Philadelphian  during  the  prevalence  of  the 
Cholera,  as  one  of  the  immediate  reasons 
for  the  publication  of  yours,  but  even  then 
I  was  only  repelling  an  unprovoked  attack 


upon  the  moral   character  of  the  Catholic 
clergy. 

I  am  well  pleased  to  have  this  opportu- 
nity of  stating  to  the  public  the  grounds  on 
which  I  utterly  disclaim  having  provoked 
this  controversy;  and  the  more  so,  because 
there  are  many  persons  who  deprecate  such 
discussions  ;  some,  regarding  the  truth  of 
religion  with  as  much  dread  or  indifference 
as  Pilate  ;  others,  from  the  admixture  of 
personal  invective  and  even  scurrility  which 
has  sometimes  characterized  controversy. 
Of  this  latter,  however,  I  trust  nothing  shall 
appear  in  our  correspondence.  I  cannot 
conceive  that  a  strict  adherence  to  the  es- 
tablished laws  of  literary  decorum  and  pro- 
priety, imposes  any  restraint  on  the  freedom 
of  debate,  or  forbids  the  thorough  dissection 
of  an  adverse  argument. 

There  is  only  one  other  topic  connected 


( 


IX 


) 


with  our  correspondence  to  which  I  shall, 
at  this  time,  call  attention.  You  have  fre- 
quently expressed  your  surprise  that  I  did 
not  take  up  your  letter  as  I  found  it  in  the 
«  Christian  Advocate,"  and  answer  it,  in- 
stead of  adopting  the  present  course.  You 
have  even  intimated  that  it  is  beyond  the 
reach  of  refutation.  I  assure  you,  dear 
Sir,  that  it  never  so  appeared  to  me,  and 
that  my  motive  for  adopting  this  plan  was 
entirely  different.  There  are  first  princi- 
ples at  the  bottom  of  every  subject,  the  ap- 
plication of  which  never  fails  to  throw  light 
on  questions  in  detail  springing  out  of  such 
subject.  I  saw  in  your  letter  that  you  had 
entirely  overlooked  those  first  principles  of 
Christianity  by  the  application  of  which 
truth  may  be  distinguished  from  error.  I 
saw  our  doctrines  incorrectly  stated,  ar- 
raigned, tried,  and  triumphantly  condemn- 
ed— but  then  you  were  conducting  these 
proceedings  in  the  absence  of  every  tribu- 
nal except  that  of  your  own  opinion  and 
the  opinion  of  those  who  might  happen  to 
agree  with  you. 

But  knowing  that  Christ,  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  his  church,  has  provided  a  tribunal 
expressly  for  the  purpose  of  determining 
such  disputes  as  those  agitated  in  your  let- 
ter, I  chose  to  appeal  to  the  legitimate  um- 
pire. I  am  happy  that  you  have  also  re- 
cognised the  existence,  and  competency  of 
this  divinely  appointed  tribunal,  and  al- 
though our  controversy  is  to  commence 
with  an  investigation  of  what  it  is,  still  the 
fact  of  its  existence  is  a  point  on  which 
there  is  no  dispute  between  us.  This  start- 
ing from  a  common  principle,  should  indi- 
cate that  truth,  and  not  personal  triumph 
is  the  object  we  have  mutually  in  view: — 
and  proceeding  under  the  guidance  of  the 
rules  agreed  upon,  I  hope  and  trust  that  the 
discussion  will  lead  to  consequences  neither 
unpleasant,  nor  unprofitable  to  our  readers 
or  ourselves.  In  this  way  questions  will 
succeed  each  other  in  the  rational  order 
both  of  time  and  place — and  it  now  remains 
for  me  to  open  the  correspondence  with 
that  great  question,  viz.  "what  is  that  in- 
fallible means  which  Christ  has  appointed 
for  determining  disputes  in  his  church?" 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

Jno.  Hughes. 


New  York,  January  5th,  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

Sir, — I  had  hoped  that  our  prolonged 
correspondence  would  cease  with  the  adop- 
tion of  the  rules,  and  give  place  to  the  ex- 
pected discussion.  You  have  felt  it  neces- 
sary however  to  write  again  on  preliminary 
subjects,  and  your  letter  calls  for  some  no- 
tice by  me  on  several  accounts. 

In  reference  to  the  origin  of  the  contro- 
versy which  is  about  to  be  undertaken,  I 
now  in  conclusion  lay  before  you  the  pas- 
sages which  relate  to  it  in  the  published 
letter.  They  are  taken  in  part  from  the 
beginning,  and  in  part  from  the  close  of 
that  communication. 

"  Baltimore,  25tk  July,  1831. 

"  My  dear  Madam, — When  you  first  put  into  my 
hands,  "  Father  Clement,"  with  the  strictures  of  an 
anonymous  writer,  I  cursorily  looked  at  his  remarks, 
and  sent  you  in  reply,  a  work  called  the  "  Protestant," 
originally  published  in  Edinburgh,  as  containing  a  full 
and  satisfactory  refutation  of  those  strictures. 

"  You  have  since  informed  me  that  a  written  answer 
would  be  more  satisfactory — nay  more,  that  it  was  in 
some  sort,  triumphantly  demanded  as  impossible. 

"  You  are  fully  aware,  that  the  points  at  issue  be- 
tween Protestants  and  Papists  arc  numerous  and  vital, 
and  that  it  would  require  far  more  leisure,  than  I  ever 
can  command,  and  far  more  talent  than  I  possess,  to  do 
justice  to  this  discussion. 

"  Nor  is  the  writer  to  whom  I  am  requested  to  reply 
in  the  proper  sense  a  responsible  one.  His  name  was 
for  some  time  withheld,  and  when  at  my  request,  it  was 
given,  the  author,  though  highly  respectable  and  intel- 
ligent, did  not  appear  to  me  an  accredited  defender  of 
his  principles  ;  though  in  all  likelihood,  as  wise  as  his 
teachers.  He  may  not  be  acknowledged  as  authority, 
by  those  whom  he  here  represents. 

"  Notwithstanding  these  things,  however,  I  feel  your 
call  to  be  imperative.  As  your  pastor,  it  is  my  duty 
and  my  privilege  to  do  all  in  my  power  to  aid  you  in 
arriving  at  a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  in  repelling 
attacks  on  our  precious  faith.  And  when  to  this  is 
added  the  declaration,  that  we  do  not  reply  to  such 
things  because  we  cannot;  when  our  delay,  arising  from 
pressing  avocations,  from  dislike  of  controversy,  or  from 
a  delicate  regard  to  what  is  proper,  in  the  mode  and 
spirit  of  conducting  it,  are  triumphantly  appealed  to  as 
evidences  of  the  conceded  weakness  of  our  cause,  it  ap- 
pears indeed  our  duty  to  take  up  the  challenge." — 
[Christian  Advocate,  Aug.  1832,  p.  347.] 

"  In  pressing  these  questions,  we  intend  to  be  res- 
pectful, though  plain — and  as  we  have  been  called  on 
for  a  defence  of  our  views,  so  we  feel  it  a  duty  to  re- 
ply." 

"  Finally,  we  expect  a  reply  to  these  various  objec- 
tions and  inquiries,  and  we  ask  one  from  some  accre- 
dited respondent,  not  from  one  whose  defence  may  be 
disclaimed,  after  the  trouble  of  an  extended  discussion 
has  been  gone  into.  There  are  priests  and  bishops,  See. 
We  are  willing  to  meet  any  of  them,  on  the  broad  field 
of  this  important  and  vital  discussion  ;  and  hereby  make 
this  disposition  known. 

"  Though  removed  from  Baltimore,  I  shall  be  near  at 
hand,  (in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,)  and  by  God's  grace. 


( 


prepared  for  any  respectful  and  intelligent  communica- 
tion of  responsible  character,  on  this  subject." 

In  these  passages,  you  have  the  history 
of  the  discussion,  prior  to  your  taking  it  up. 
Let  it  speak  for  itself.  I  have  already  giv- 
en you  some  of  my  reasons  for  its  publica- 
tion, and  need  not  here  repeat  them.  I 
freely  own  that  the  publication  of  my  let- 
ter, gave  notoriety  and  intensity  to  the  call 
for  a  reply.  But  it  did  not  begin  the  con- 
troversy— nor  did  it  first  publish,  though 
it  first  printed  it;  for  the  whole  matter  had 
become  a  subject  of  conversation  in  Balti- 
more, and  the  manuscripts  severally  writ- 
ten, were  so  far  read,  as  to  constitute  a  pub- 
licly known  issue.  It  is  also  a  little  re- 
markable, that  the  reasoning  which  you 
adopt,  as  to  the  Roman  Catholic  commu- 
nity, applies  strictly  to  the  congregation  of 
which  I  was  then  pastor.  It  was  known  to 
many  that  I  had  been  addressed;  that  an 
answer  was  demanded  of  me;  that  I  had  at 
first  declined  to  give  one,  sending  only  a 
book  on  the  controversy,  and  that  a  writ- 
ten reply  from  me  was  then,  with  some 
triumph,  insisted  on.  And  it  was  not  until 
nearly  a  whole  year  had  passed,  and  many 
of  my  friends  thought  my  own  character, 
and  even  the  cause  of  truth  suffering  from 
my  silence,  that  I  took  up  my  pen.  There 
is  another  fact  which  may  cast  some  light 
on  this  subject.  In  due  time,  a  manuscript 
attempt  at  a  reply  to  my  letter,  was  sent 
after  me  to  Philadelphia.  My  alternative 
then  became  as  follows,  that  is,  according 
to  your  reasoning — I  must  reply  to  the 
Baltimore  layman,  or  be  silent.  The  for- 
mer I  had  pledged  myself  not  to  do,  the 
latter  would  be  by  construction,  and  al- 
most by  confession,  a  surrender  of  my 
principles,  as  incapable  of  defence.  What 
then  could  I  do?  Honour  forbade  meto  pub- 
lish his  communications;  consistency  and 
common  sense  forbade  me  to  reply  to  them. 
The  only  course  which  remained  for  me, 
therefore,  was  to  publish  my  own  letter, 
and  thus  transfer  the  discussion  to  a  respon- 
sible author,  if  any  such  should  choose  to 
take  it  up.  Yet  when  I  do  this,  you  claim 
the  public  sympathy  as  an  injured  defender 
of  your  faith,  against  the  unprovoked  at- 
tacks of  a  presuming  Protestant!  But 
sometimes  an  objector's  consistency  is  best 
discovered  by  comparing  him  with  himself. 
I  have  heretofore  barely  alluded  to  your 


) 

publication,  last  autumn,  in  the  U.  S.  Ga- 
zette. Before  you  saw  what  you  term  my 
challenge,  you  took  occasion  in  reply  to  an 
article  from  the  Editor  of  the  Philadel- 
phian,  to  speak  in  the  following  terms  of 
Protestant  ministers.  "And  what  can  they, 
[the  Roman  Catholic  Priests,]  what  can  the 
public  think,  when  they  see  the  shepherds, 
who  are  all  remarkable  for  their  pastoral 
solicitude,  so  long  as  the  flock  is  healthy,  the 
pastures  pleasant,  and  the  fleece  luxuriant, 
abandoning  their  post,  when  disease  begins 
to  spread  desolation  in  the  fold."  And 
again,  "How  comes  it  then,  that  these  ob- 
jects, [cholera  patients,]  have  been  so  gene- 
rally forsaken  by  the  Protestant  clergy?  It 
is  not  long  since  I  read  an  account  of  eight 
missionaries,  that  is  two  missionaries,  (the 
rest  being  wives  and  children,)  embarking 
for  the  conversion  of  the  distant  heathen. 
The  conversion  of  a  single  Gentoo,  is  bla- 
zoned over  the  land,  as  a  triumph  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  a  victory  above  all  value  of 
money  and  labour,  and  how  comes  it  that 
the  Protestant  of  Philadelphia,  less  fortu- 
nate than  the  Gentoo  of  Hindostan,  cannot 
find  a  clergyman  of  his  own  persuasion, 
who  would  whisper  to  him  words  of  hope, 
through  the  redemption  of  Jesus  Christ, 
from  the  moment  that  the  fatal  disease  has 
seized  upon  him.  I  do  not  say  that  this 
was  the  case  with  all  the  Protestant  clergy; 
but  I  do  say  it  of  some." 

You  will  not  understand  me  as  intending 
at  all,  to  defend  the  article  to  which  you  re- 
ply, or  to  find  fault  with  you  for  answering 
it.  But  I  present  to  you  for  your  conside- 
ration, your  most  ungenerous,  and  unjust, 
and  injurious  aspersions  of  Protestant  min- 
isters. And  is  it  true  then,  that  the  body 
of  Protestant  ministers,  Episcopal,  Bap- 
tist, Methodist  Episcopal,  Presbyterian, 
Congregational,  &c.  "generally,"  "though 
not  all,"  forsook  the  dying  sufferers,  after 
having  lived  on  the  fat  of  the  land,  and 
the  sweat  of  the  people's  faces,  when  in 
prosperity  and  health  ?  And  is  it  true  that 
these  Protestants,  with  all  their  missionary 
efforts,  are  so  base,  so  hypocritical  as  this? 
If  you  can  prove  your  charges,  then  we  de- 
serve your  most  faithful  exposure,  with  all 
the  reprehension  and  infamy,  which  your 
statements,  if  well  founded,  are  fitted  to 
produce.  But  my  principal  object  in  this 
reference  is,  to  show  what  liberties  you 


( 


XI 


) 


take  with  Protestants,  in  contrast  with  your 
strictures  on  and  complaints  of  my  letter, 
published  in  the  Christian  Advocate;  I 
need  not  add  that  the  very  frame-work  of 
your  periodical  publications,  involves  the 
scheme  of  aggression  on  the  religion  of  Pro- 
testants; that  if  we  enter  your  places  of 
public  worship,  we  are  continually  liable 
to  meet  with  the  denunciations  applied  to 
heretics  alone;  and  that  between  propa- 
gandisrn  and  intolerance,  in  all  countries 
where  your  worship  is  established  by  law, 
Protestants  have  no  very  enviable  lot. 
Let  not  the  odium  then  attendant  on  un- 
provoked attacks  be  levelled  at  me;  and  if 
at  the  proper  time,  I  sustain  with  suitable 
evidence,  the  statements  made  in  the  Chris- 
tian Advocate,  may  I  not  claim  the  univer- 
sal privilege  of  pleading  justification  in  the 
proof  of  facts?  You  will  scarcely  look  for 
me  to  enter  on  this  proof  now. 

As  to  archbishop  Usher,  however,  you  can 
hardly  imagine  that  I  wished  to  adduce  his 
opinion  of  your  doctrine  as  authority  in 
your  Church.  You  know  however,  that  he 
has  written  on  this  subject,  and  stands  high 
with  Protestants.  It  was  his  quotations 
from  the  catechism  of  the  council  of  Trent, 
&c.  (having  the  originals  before  him,  which 
I  had  not  at  the  time,)  which  I  intended  to 
refer  to  as  authority  in  your  Church.  But 
by  some  strange  error,  a  prince  among 
Protestants  was  made  a  Romanist,  a  mis- 
take which  corrects  itself,  and  does  him 
only  injustice.  It  is  to  the  catechism  we 
wished  to  refer — quoted  by  him.  You 
mistake  me  when  you  suppose,  that  the 
reason  of  my  insisting  on  an  answer  to 
my  published  letter,  was  my  impression 
that  it  was  so  very  conclusive  as  to  preclude 
reply.  I  thought  that  the  candid,  natural, 
honourable  course,  for  a  scholar,  a  gentle- 
man, and  a  Christian  to  pursue,  and  having 
heard  of  you  as  one  of  the  most  distinguish- 
ed ministers  of  your  church,  supposed  you 
the  more  likely  to  concur  in  so  obvious  a 
suggestion.     It  is  also  at  a  great  sacrifice 


on  my  part,  that  I  now  conform  to  your 
wishes,  and  enter  on  the  present  mode  of 
controversy.  A  connected  discussion, 
either  oral,  or  from  the  press,  would  have 
been  more  convenient  to  me,  on  all  ac- 
counts. Yet  I  have  waved  my  rights;  I 
have  in  chief  part  adopted  your  rules,  I 
have  conceded  to  you  the  choice  of  ques- 
tions, in  the  two  general  propositions  sug- 
gested as  the  basis  of  investigation:  and  you 
are  to  commence  the  discussion,  and  I  am 
to  defend  the  Protestant  faith,  though  you 
call  yourself  the  challenged  person;  and 
while  mine  is  the  life  of  a  traveller,  yours 
is  one  of  sanctuary  quietude,  and  literary 
leisure.  Yet  still  I  meet  you  with  hearty 
satisfaction,  having  it  as  my  chief  source  of 
regret,  that  whilst  American  Protestant 
Christians  present  a  galaxy  of  great  and 
good  men,  abundantly  qualified  to  defend 
our  precious  faith,  this  momentous  contro- 
versy has  fallen  into  such  poor  hands  as 
mine. 

I  fully  reciprocate  the  wish  that  we  may 
be  enabled  to  pursue  our  investigation,  in 
the  right  spirit  and  to  the  best  ends.  I 
shall  affect  no  false  charity;  I  pray  that  the 
God  of  truth  and  love,  may  imbue  us  with 
that  which  is  true! 

I  have  only  to  add  that  I  admit  no  infal- 
lible rule  of  faith,  or  judge  of  controversy, 
but  the  revealed  will  of  God.  What  that 
revealed  will  is,  according  to  previous  ar- 
rangement between  us,  is  the  question  with 
which  you  are  now  to  open  the  controversy. 
The  delayed  receipt  of  your  last  letter,  it 
having  reached  me  only  the  evening  before 
I  left  Philadelphia  for  this  city,  is  my  apolo- 
gy for  a  corresponding  delay  in  sending 
this. 

I  remain  yours,  respectfully, 

John  Breckinridge. 

P.  S.  In  the  event  of  inevitable  inter- 
ruptions, I  shall  claim  the  indulgence  men- 
tioned in  a  former  letter,  of  a  temporary 
suspension  of  the  discussion. 


CONTROVERSY N°.    1. 


RUIiES. 


The  undersigned  agreeing  to  have  an  amicable  discussion  of  the  great  points  of  relig- 
ious controversy,  between  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics,  do  hereby  bind  them- 
selves to  the  observance  of  the  following  rules: — 

1.  The  parties  shall  write  and  publish,  alternately,  in  the  weekly  religious  paper 
called  The  Presbyterian,  and  a  Roman  Catholic  paper  to  be  furnished  by  the  first  of 
January.  It  being  understood  that  the  communications  shall  be  published  after  the 
following  plan: — One  party  opening  the  first  week,  the  other  party  replying  the  next 
week,  and  every  piece  to  be  republished  in  the  immediate  succeeding  number  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  paper.  The  communications  not  to  exceed  four  columns  of  The 
Presbyterian,  nor  to  continue  beyond  six  months,  without  consent  of  parties. 

2.  The  parties  agree  that  there  is  an  infallible  Rule  of  Faith  established  by  Christ,  to 
guide  us  in  matters  of  religion,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  disputes  in  the  Church 
of  Christ. 

3.  They  moreover  agree,  that  after  giving  their  views  of  the  Rule  of  Faith,  they 
shall  proceed  to  discuss  the  question,  "Is  the  Protestant  religion,  the  religion  of 
Christ?" 

4.  The  parties  agree  respectively,  to  adhere  strictly  to  the  subject  of  discussion,  for 
the  time  being,  and  to  admit  no  second  question,  until  the  first  shall  have  been  ex- 
hausted. Each  party  shall  be  the  judge  when  he  is  done  with  a  subject,  and  shall  be 
at  liberty  to  occupy  his  time  with  a  second  topic,  when  he  has  done  with  the  first, 
leaving  to  the  other  party  the  liberty  of  continuing  to  review  the  abandoned  topic,  as 
long  as  he  shall  choose ;  subject,  however,  to  be  answered,  if  he  introduce  new 
matter. 

5.  Mr.  Hughes  to  open  the  discussion,  and  Mr.  Breckinridge  to  follow,  according 
to  the  dictates  of  his  own  judgment. 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE, 
JOHN  HUGHES. 
Philadelphia,  December  14th,  1S33. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


January  21,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — I  am  extremely  happy  to  have 
this  opportunity,  not  of  my  own  seeking,  to 
submit  to  your  consideration  and  that  of  our 
readers^  the  reasons  which  prove  the  truth  of 
the  Catholic  Religion,  and  the  tendency  of 
every  other  system  to  weaken  the  principles 
and  sap  the  foundation  of  Christianity  itself. 
In  doing  this,  however,  I  shall  be  careful  to 
abstain  from  the  use  of  gross  or  insulting 
epithets.  I  shall  make  no  appeal  to  preju- 
dice or  passion — but  availing  myself  of  those 
advantages  which  are  peculiar  to  the  cause  of 
truth — I  shall  address  your  reason,  through 
the  medium  of  rational  argument  founded  upon 

B 


solid  principles  and  indisputable  facts.  I 
shall  merely  premise  in  addition  to  what  I  have 
stated,  that  I  discriminate  between  the  false 
doctrines  of  modern  sects  and  the  individuals 
whose  misfortune  it  is  to  have  been  educated  in 
the  belief  of  them,  without  a  knowledge  and 
sometimes  without  even  a  suspicion  of  their  er- 
roneousness.  Ignorance  of  truth  is  criminal, 
only  when  it  is  voluntary,  and  when  men 
through  party-attachments,  prejudice  or  hu- 
man respect  dread  the  consequences  of  inves- 
tigation.— But  even  then,  God  alone  is  the 
judge  before  whose  tribunal  they  shall  stand 
or  fall.  I  judge  no  man — be  the  sect  or  de- 
nomination to  which  he  belongs  what  it  may. 
When  we  reflect  that  there  was  a  time 


il 


when  the  multitude  of  believers  had  but  one 
heart  and  one  soul,  and  contrast  that  period 
with  the  conflict  of  opinions,  and  the  rivalship 
of  creeds  which  have  produced  the  present  dis- 
tracted condition  of  the  Christian  family,  the 
lover  of  truth  may  find  enough  to  make  him 
weep  for  charity.  Then,  there  was  one  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism;  constituting  the  unity 
of  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  Now,  the 
baptism,  the  faiHCfand  the  Lord  himself  are 
become  so  many  topics  of  dispute,  watch- 
words of  division  and  signals  of  contradic- 
tion. Men  under  pretence  of  reforming  his 
church,  have  tampered  with  the  integrity  of 
Christian  belief,  and  either  blind  or  despe- 
rately indifferent  to  the  consequences,  have 
burst  the  ligament  which  bound  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  together,  and  left  them 
defenceless  against  the  invading  spirit  of  in- 
fidelity. The  ancient  land-marks  of  the 
Christian's  belief  have  been  removed — the 
works  of  the  citadel  have  been  broken  down, 
and  the  breach  once  made,  Religion  has  been 
robbed,  as  far  as  it  was  in  the  power  of  man's 
perverted  ingenuity  to  rob  her,  of  the  very 
privilege  and  principle  of  self-preservation. 

What  is  the  cause  of  this  unhappy  state  of 
things?  What  is  the  prolific  principle  that 
has  produced  such  a  harvest  of  creeds,  in 
which  the  wheat  of  sound  doctrines  is  scarce- 
ly perceptible  amidst  the  tares  and  cockle  of 
delusion?  That  principle,  Rev.  Sir,  is  pri- 
vate interpretation.  The  Presbyterian  Church 
like  every  other  church  that  has  adopted  it, 
is  too  weak  to  sustain  its  pressure,  and  is 
consequently  falling  apart,  under  its  opera- 
tion. That  principle,  or  as  it  is  regarded 
among  Protestants,  that  privilege,  is  destruc- 
tive of  unity,  by  making  doctrine  like  mat- 
ter, infinitely  divisible.  Let  a  sect  be  com- 
posed of  only  three  individuals,  and,  if  pri- 
vate interpretation  be  adopted  as  the  cement 
of  religious  union,  they  will  not  long  cling 
together.  But  the  confessions  of  faith  by 
which  Protestants  endeavour  to  preserve  the 
unity  of  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,  is  a  prac- 
tical proof  that  they  themselves  do  not  regard 
private  interpretation  as  conservative  of  truth. 
Let  it  not  be  said  that  these  remarks  warrant 
the  charge  that  the  Catholic  Religion  is  hostile 
to  the  dissemination  and  perusal  of  the  holy 
Scriptures.  I  protest  against  such  an  infer- 
ence; all  that  I  want  to  establish  is  contained 
in  the  spirit  and  letter  of  St.  Peter's  declara- 
tion, that  "  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of 
any  private  interpretation." 

Now  the  Protestant  "  rule  of  faith"  utter- 
ly reverses  this  declaration,  and  makes  all 
Scripture  of  every  private  interpretation.  The 


Protestant  rule  of  faith,  is,  if  I  am  not  mis- 
taken (and  if  I  be,  I  will  thank  you  for  cor- 
rection) the  Bible  alone. 

"The  Bible  alone,"  then,  is,  you  suppose, 
"  that  infallible  rule  of  faith  established  by 
Christ,  to  guide  us  in  matters  of  religion,  for 
the  purpose  of  determining  disputes  in  the 
church  of  Christ,"  to  the  existence  of  which 
we  have  both  subscribed  our  names.  Allow 
me,  Rev.  Sir,  here  to  remark,  that  whether 
you  chose  to  recognise,  or  to  deny  the  exis- 
tence of  an  "  infallible  rule  of  faith,"  was  to 
me,  a  matter  of  utter  indifference.  The  cause 
of  truth  would  have  been  vindicated  as  much 
by  the  denial,  as  it  can  be  by  the  admission. 
In  the  former  case  you  would  have  reduced 
the  religion  of  Christ  to  a  matter  of  opinion, 
and  this  is  precisely  what  you  do,  not  by  ad- 
mitting its  existence,  for  in  this  you  were 
right,  but  by  restricting  it  as  Protestants  are 
obliged  to  do,  to  the  Bible  alone. 

You  have  sufficiently  defined  the  rule  of 
faith  by  telling  us  that  it  was  established  by 
Christ,  "for  the  purpose  of  guiding  us  in 
matters  of  religion  and  of  determining  dis- 
putes in  his  church."  Now  it  is  altogether 
inponsistent  with  our  belief  of  the  personal 
character  and  attributes  of  Jesus  Christ,  to 
suppose  that  he  would  have  established  this 
"  rule  of  faith,"  as  a  vieans,  without  having 
rendered  it  competent  to  the  end,  for  which  it 
was  established.  As  a  rule,  therefore,  it  must 
be  practically  as  well  as  theoretically  infalli- 
ble. Otherwise  it  would  be  incompetent  to  the 
end  for  which  it  was  established,  and  could 
neither  "guide  us  in  matters  of  religion,  nor 
determine  our  disputes."  It  would  be  a 
mockery  ;  more  worthy  of  the  Arabian  impos- 
tor, than  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  "  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith"  then,  which  you  have  ad- 
mitted in  our  regulations  for  this  controversy, 
must  be  infallible,  not  only  in  itself,  but  in 
its  application  to  the  purposes  of  its  establish- 
ment, so  as  to  give  those  who  abide  by  its 
decision  an  infallible  certainty  that  they  abide 
in  the  doctrines  of  Christ. 

Let  us  now  examine  whether  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith — the  Bible  alone — is  competent 
by  practical  application,  to  the  end  for  which 
such  a  guide  was  established  by  the  Saviour 
of  men.  In  other  words,  let  us  see  whether 
your  definition  of  that  rule,  as  a  Protestant, 
does  not  conflict  with  with  your  admission  of 
its  existence  as  a  Christian.  I  shall  conduct 
the  examination  on  the  principles  already 
laid  down,  which  you  are  at  liberty  to  refute 
if  you  can,  but  which,  if  you  do  not  refute, 
shall  be  looked  upon  as  conceded, — for  I  wish 
you  to  be  advised,  that  in  the  whole  contro- 


versy,  every  inch  of  ground  which  is  not  dis- 
puted by  you,  shall  be  looked  upon,  as  so 
much  given  up  to  the  cause  of  Catholicity  and 
truth.  And  at  the  same  time,  I  have  to  re- 
quest of  you,  as  an  honorable  adversary  that 
in  attempting  a  refutation,  you  will  take  up 
my  arguments  in  my  own  words  and  accord- 
ing to  their  context  and  meaning. 

The  question  then  is  this:  Is  the  Bible 
alone,  that  practical  rule  of  faith,  established 
by  Christ,  to  guide  us  in  matters  of  religion 
and  to  determine  disputes  in  his  Church?" 

If  it  is  not,  then  it  will  follow,  that  the 
whole  Protestant  system,  that  is,  the  system 
of  all  who  adopt  the  Bible  alone  to  '-guide 
them  in  matters  of  religion,"  hinges  on  a 
principle  which  is  vicious  and  defective.  I 
will  now  proceed  to  state  the  reasons  which 
should  make  it  manifest  to  every  unprejudi- 
ced mind,  that  the  Bible  alone,  is  not,  and 
cannot  be  that  infallible  rule  established  by 
Christ  for  the  purpose  of  determining  dis- 
putes in  his  Church.  These  reasons  I  will 
lay  down  in  distinct  paragraphs  in  order  to 
make  them  convenient  for  the  purposes  of 
reference,  and  to  bring  them  more  within 
the  reach  of  refutation,  number  for  number. 

I.  The  Rule  of  faith  adopted  by  Protes- j 
tants,  is  the  Bible  alone — and  that  rule  you 
admit,  was  established  by  Christ,  and  infalli- 
ble. The  Bible  includes  all  the  books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  acknowledged  by 
the  Protestant  canon  of  Scripture.  Now  if 
Christ  established  the  rule  of  faith,  it  certain- 
ly was  not  the  Bible,  for  it  is  an  historical 
fact,  that  no  part  of  the  New  Testament  was 
written  for  several  years,  and  some  of  it,  not 
until  more  than  half  a  century  after  Christ's 
ascension  into  heaven.  How  could  the  Bible 
alone,  then,  be  a  rule  of  faith  to  those  Chris- 
tians who  lived,  and  believed,  and  died  in  the 
first  century,  before  the  Bible  was  written  ? 
Had  they  no  infallible  rule  of  faith — for  they 
had  not  the  Bible  ?  Or  did  Christ  establish 
ttoo  rules,  one  for  them  and  another  for  us  ? 
And  if  he  did,  show  us  the  evidence  of  the 
fact,  from  the  Bible  alone. 

II.  The  belief  that  the  Bible  alone  is  the 
infallible  rule  of  faith,  is  not  only  an  article, 
but  a  fundamental  article  of  Protestantism. 
Now  as  it  is  the  peculiar  boast,  of  Protestants 
that  they  believe  nothing  but  what  is  contain- 
ed in  the  Bible,  I  ask  you  to  point  the  chap- 
ter and  verse  which  says,  that  the  "Bible 
alone  is  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  established 
by  Christ  to  guide  us  in  matters  of  religion, 
and  to  determine  disputes."  If  there  is  no 
such  text,  then  it  follows  that  the  Protes- 
tant rule,  is  a  mere  gratuitous  assumption, 


unauthorised  by  die  very  document  from 
which  they  profess  to  derive  all  their  doc- 
trine. This  assumption  is  the  pedestal  on 
which  their  system  stands,  and  I  ask  what 
supports  the  peder'al  itself?  You  will  tell 
me  that  "  Scripture  is  profitable,  for  reproof," 
&c.  I  admit  it,  but  between  that,  and  its 
being  the  only  rule  of  faith  there  is  a  wide 
difference.  You  will  tell  me  that  the  Jews 
were  recommended  by  ci'r  Saviour,  and  the 
Beraeans  by  his  apostle  to  read  the  Scriptures; 
I  admit  it,  but  all  that  goes  no  farther  than  to 
prove  that  they  are  profitable,  &c.  St.  Paul 
commends  his  disciple  for  having  been  ac- 
quainted with  the  Scripture  from  his  child- 
hood; I  admit  it,  but  St.  Peter  tells  us  that 
there  are  persons  who  wrest  the  Scriptures  to 
their  own  destruction.  Where  then,  I  repeat 
the  question,  is  the  Scriptural  warrant,  for 
making  the  (t  Bible  alone"  our  rule  of  faith  ? 

III.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  Bible 
alone  ?  Is  it  the  Bible  on  the  shelf  of  your 
library?  Or  is  it  the  Bible  as  you  peruse  it  ? 
The  former  cannot  be  your  rule  of  faith,  and 
the  latter  is  not  the  Bible  alone,  but  you  and 
the  Bible  together.  Do  you  then,  Rev.  Sir, 
look  upon  yourself  and  the  Bible  together  as 
constituting  that  infallible  rule  established 
by  Christ  ? 

IV.  The  Bible  alone,  cannot  be  our  rule  of 
faith,  because  we  are  bound  as  Christians  to 
believe  that  the  Bible  is  an  authentic  and  in- 
spired book;  and  this  I  defy  any  one  to  prove 
from  the  Bible  alone. 

V.  The  Redeemer  of  the  world  never  in- 
tended that  the  Bible  alone  should  be  the 
rule  of  faith — because,  it  was  not  universally 
known  until  the  end  of  the  fifth  century, 
what  books,  were  to  be  regarded  as  inspired 
Scripture — consequently  the  Christians  of  the 
preceding  ages  were  destitute  of  that  infalli- 
ble rule  which  you  admit  was  established  by 
Christ;  or  if  they  possessed  a  rule  at  all,  it 
certainly  was  not  the  Bible  alone.  Besides, 
consider  the  millions  who  believed  in  Christ, 
and  could  not  read,  or  could  not  possess 
themselves  of  a  Bible,  before  printing  was  in- 
vented and  since,  were  they  on  this  account — 
are  Protestants  now  who  cannot  read,  desti- 
tute of  a  rule  of  faith? 

VI.  The  Protestant  rule  of  faith  is  not  the 
infallible  rule  established  by  Christ — for,  the 
object  and  end  of  that  rule,  was  to  "  deter- 
mine disputes  in  his  Church;"  and  it  is  an 
undeniable  fact  that  whilst  this  false  rule  has 
given  rise  to  interminable  controversy  among 
the  sects  that  have  adopted  it; — since  the  ori- 
gin of  Christianity,  not  so  much  as  one  single 


"dispute"  has  been  determined  by  the  Bible 
alone! 

VII.  The  Bible  alone,  or  the  Bible  operat- 
ed upon  by  private  interpretation,  has  given 
rise  to  all  the  heresies  that  exist.  The  Soci- 
nian,  the  Universalist,  the-  Swedenborgian 
have  as  good  a  right  to  understand  its  mean- 
ing as  you.  They  protest  against  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Catholic  Church  as  you  do;  they 
have  the  same  rule  of  faith,  the  Bible  alone, 
and  is  theirs  the  infallible  guide  appointed  by 
Christ?  His  ride  you  admit,  was  infallible — 
can  you  say  as  much  of  theirs?  His  rule  was 
conservative  of  unity  in  his  doctrine.  Is 
yours? 

VIII.  Do  you  not  admit  that  in  holding  the 
Presbyterian  doctrine  you  may  be  in  error? 
If  so,  what  confidence  have  you  in  the  infalli- 
bility of  your  guide?  If  so — then  you  must 
admit  the  possibility  of  the  Socinian's  being- 
right?  especially  as  he  follows  the  principle 
which  you  recommend  to  all,  as  "the  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith,  established  by  Christ  to 
guide  us  in  matters  of  religion" — the  Bible 
alone.  Now  I  ask,  is  it  consistent  for  you  to 
exclude  the  Socinian  from  the  pale  of  Chris- 
tianity, whilst  you  are  compelled  to  admit  by 
your  own  rule,  that  your  belief  may  be  false 
and  his  may  be  true!  I  say  you  are  compelled 
as  a  consistent  Protestant  to  make  this  ad- 
mission— and  I  am  prepared  to  prove  it. 

IX.  If  the  Bible  alone  be  the  rule  of  faith, 
it  must  be  the  Bible  according  to  each  one's 
interpretation.  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  let  me  sup- 
pose a  case  to  illustrate  my  meaning.  I  will 
imagine  four  Presbyterian  clergymen  reading 
the  Bible — yourself  being  included  in  the 
number.  The  one  becomes  persuaded  that 
Unitarianism,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible. 
The  other,  that  it  is  universal  salvation; — 
the  third  that  the  doctrine  of  Swedenborg,  is 
the  true  doctrine,  according  to  Scripture, — I 
ask  you  whether  these  brethren  would  not  be 
bound  before  God  as  honest  men,  to  quit  your 
church  and  embrace  respectively  these  differ- 
ent systems,  which  according  to  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith  are  found  (relatively  to  them)  in 
the  Bible?  I  say  they  would — and  I  call  you 
for  the  proof  of  the  contrary.  But  this  is  not 
all.  What  if  a  ray  of  divine  light  should 
break  in,  upon  your  own  mind — what  if  the 
scales  of  prejudice  should  fall  from  your  eyes 
in  the  perusal  of  the  sacred  page,  and  you  should 
see  or  imagine  you  saw,  the  evidence  that  Christ 
established  a  Church  to  which  he  commu- 
nicated the  attribute  of  infallibility,  and  that 
this  church  can  be  no  other  than, — shall  I  say 
it? — the  Roman  Catholic  Church — I  ask 
again,  under  such  a  persuasion  would  you  not 


yourself  be  bound  before  God,  to  embrace  the 
doctrines  of  that  Church — even  at  the  risk  of 
being  called  an  idolater.  I  say  you  would. 
I  mention  these  various  operations  of  your 
ride  of  faith,  to  show  that  the  Redeemer  ne- 
ver did  establish — "  to  guide  us  in  matters 
of  religion  and  determine  disputes  in  his 
Church" — a  principle  which  in  application, 
is  found  to  work  the  destruction,  instead  of 
the  accomplishment  of  the  ends  for  which  it 
was  instituted.  For  these  reasons,  then,  I 
say  it  is  impossible  that  the  "infallible 
rule  of  faith"  established  by  Christ  should  be 
the  Bible  alone. — And  consequently  that  the 
Protestant  rule  is  false. 

X.  The  doctrines  of  Christ  were  delivered 
to  mankind,  and  believed  as  positive  truths, 
or  facts,  about  which  there  could  be  no 
ground  for  disputation.  Now  the  object  for 
which  an  "infallible  rule  of  faith  was  estab- 
lished" by  our  Saviour,  was  to  guard  these 
eternal  and  unchangeable  truths,  or  facts, 
from  being  confounded  with,  or  lost  in  the 
erring  speculations  of  men,  who,  he  foresaw, 
would  endeavour  to  supplant  him,  by  sub- 
stituting their  opinions  for  his  doctrine,  and 
teaching  error  in  his  name.  And  this  being 
the  case,  is  it  not  as  clear  as  noon-day,  that 
the  Protestant  rule  is  not  the  rule  established 
by  Christ.  Why  ?  Because  instead  of  teach- 
ing the  doctrines  of  Christ  as  positive  truths, 
facts,  it  merely  submits  them  to  its  votaries 
as  opinions,  held  by  the  preacher^  agreed  to 
by  those  who  drew  up  the  confession  of  faith, 
and  supposed  to  be  contained  in  the  Bible. 
But  supposed  by  whom  ?  by  the  members  of 
the  sect.  And  supposed  how  long  ?  just  un- 
til a  change  comes  over  the  spirit  of  private 
interpretation.  Sir,  the  most  vital  tenet  of 
Christianity,  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  if 
brought  in  contact  with  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith,  will  be  dissolved  by  the  very  touch,  into 
a  matter  of  speculation  and  mere  human  opi- 
nion, whereas  Jesus  Christ  never  inculcated 
the  belief  of  an  opinion.  Therefore  the  Pro- 
testant rule  of  faith  so  far  from  being  the  foun- 
tain of  infallible  assurance  as  to  what  doc- 
trines we  should  believe,  is  on  the  contrary 
the  very  parent  of  uncertainty  and  cannot 
consequently  be  that  "infallible  rule  estab- 
lished by  Christ,  to  guide  us  in  matters  of 
religion,  and  to  determine  disputes  in  his 
Church." 

I  might  still  multiply  these  arguments, 
but  it  is  unnecessary.  The  conclusions  are 
fairly  drawn,  and  I  hold  myself  prepared  to 
prove  the  premises  and  vindicate  the  reason- 
ing whenever  they  are  called  in  dispute. 
The  question  is  not  how  many  great  and 


5 


good  men  have  been  involved  in  the  same 
delusion  as  yourself  with  regard  to  the  rule 
of  faith.  The  question  is  not  how  many 
brilliant  minds  have  been  warped,  and  turned 
aside  from  rectitude  of  judgment  on  the 
subject  of  religion,  by  adopting  or  inherit- 
ing from  birth  and  education,  a  principle 
of  guidance  in  religion,  which  principle, 
when  examined  is  found  to  be  in  itself  repug- 
nant to  reason,  unauthorized  by  Revelation, 
and  in  its  practical  consequences  utterly 
subversive  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
by  reducing  them  to  the  uncertainty  of  mere 
opinion.  But  the  question  is,  what  is  "  that 
infallible  rule  established  by  Christ  to  guide 
us  in  matters  of  religion,  for  the  purpose  of 
determining  disputes  in  the  Church  of 
Christ," — whose  existence  you  have  recog- 
nized ? 

The  cause  of  truth  requires  that  you  should 
meet  my  arguments  and  refute  them,  article 
for  article.  What  course  you  will  adopt  to 
accomplish  this,  it  is  difficult  for  me  to  con- 
ceive. But  I  am  satisfied  that  our  readers 
will  not  be  contented  with  that  sliding  sys- 
tem of  controversial  tactics  by  which  the  op- 
ponents of  the  true  religion,  are  accustomed 
to  "slur  the  notes"  of  an  argument,  which 
they  cannot  answer.  One  part  of  this  sys- 
tem is,  to  draw  consequences  from  our  lan- 
guage which  we  never  intended,  and  then  re- 
fute their  own  deductions,  instead  of  taking 
up  the  real  difficulty,  and  grappling  with  the 
reasons  by  which  it  is  sustained.  Another  is, 
to  appeal  to  party  feelings,  and  touch  the 
string  of  prejudice  against  the  Catholic  reli- 
gion. I  know  that  there  are  individuals,  in 
every  Protestant  denomination,  who  are  not 
to  be  operated  on  by  any  or  all  the  resources 
of  evasion.  There  are  men  of  every  denomi- 
nation, who  with  a  candid,  honest,  and  im- 
partial mind,  will  judge  our  arguments  ac- 
cording to  their  intrinsic  evidence — I  ask  no 
more. 

The  importance  of  determining  the  ques- 
tion of  the  rule  of  faith  must  be  manifest  to 
all  who  have  reflected  on  the  subject.  In 
controversy,  it  is  like  the  standard  of  weights 
and  measures  used  in  the  disposal  of  mer- 
chandise; whenever  the  merchant  uses  false 
standards,  he  is  certain  to  cheat  his  custom- 
ers or  himself.  It  is  then,  Rev.  Sir,  useless 
for  you  to  condemn  the  doctrines  of  the 
Catholic  church  until  you  shall  have  proved 
that  the  rule  by  which  you  judge  them,  is 
the  infallible  rule.  The  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity have  been  regarded  by  the  Catholic 
church  from  the  beginning,  as  fixed  stars  in 
the  firmanent  of  Revelation.     She  ascertain- 


ed and  certified  their  existence  by  the  same 
infallible  rule,  (or  if  I  be  allowed  to  continue 
the  figure,)  the  same  telescope  which  she  re- 
ceived from  Jesus  Christ  himself,  as  the  true, 
and  only  true   medium  of  observation.     By 
this   means  she  knew  them  from  the  com- 
mencement, by  this  means  she  defined  more 
clearly  in  her  general  councils,  their   exist- 
ence,  relative   position,    and   influence,    as 
occasion  required, — and  by  this  means  also, 
she  was  enabled  to  detect  the  "new  lights," 
which  men  in  every  age  attempted  to  plant  in 
her  firmament.     Thus  it  was,  that  amidst  the 
contending  elements  of  heresy,  on  the  right 
hand  and  on  the  left,  she  has  pursued  the  even 
tenor  of  her  way,  imparting  to  all  nations,  and 
to  all  generations, as  she  passed  the  knowledge 
of  the  doctrines   which  her  founder,  Christ, 
commanded  her  to  teach  and  preach  to  every 
creature.     Some  fifteen  hundred  years  after 
her  establishment,  a  few  individuals  rise  up 
in  the  might  of  private  opinion,  and  assert 
that  the  church  had   fallen  into  error,  begin 
to   teach  new  doctrines,   and   reject  others 
which  had  always  been  believed.     This  act 
is  what  is  called  in  history  by  the  specious 
name  of  Reformation.     At   first   they  pro- 
fessed their  willingness  to  abide  by  the  de- 
cision of  the  church,  touching  their  opinions, 
but  as  soon  as  the  church  by  applying  the 
proper  medium  of  infallible  discernment  had 
pronounced  their  opinions  to   be  contrary  to 
the  doctrines  of  Christ,  as  soon  as  she  had 
refused    to  raise  their  "new   lights"  to  the 
dignity  of  fixed  stars  in  the  heavens  of  be- 
lief— from  that  moment,  it  was   determined 
that  they  should    declare  themselves    inde- 
pendent of  the  church,  and  that  they  should 
fabricate  a  "  telescope"  of  their  own.     They 
have  done  so,  but  neither  could  this  deter- 
mine   what  were   the  fixed  and   immutable 
doctrines  of  Christianity.     The  German  Re- 
former wished  all  men  to  see  as  he  saw — but 
the  medium  of  observation  which  was  correct 
at  Wirtemberg,  was  found  to  be  deceitful  at 
Geneva,  and  thus  every  man  who  felt  himself 
called   upon   to  labour  in  the  Reformation, 
began  by  making  his  own  telescope.     And 
not  only  this  ;  every  individual   is  furnished 
with  a  pocket  spy-glass — by  which  he  has  a 
right  to  judge  the  doctrine  of  his   minister, 
and  see  whether  it  is  conformable  to  the  dis- 
coveries of  the  great  telescope,  contained  in 
the  "Confession  of  Faith" — to  judge  of  the 
confession  itself,  and  see  whether  it  is  con- 
formable to  the  Bible — and  to  judge  of  the 
Bible  and  see  whether  it  is  conformable  to 
his — spy-glass — that  is,   private   interpreta- 
tion. 


6 


Thus,  Rev,  Sir,  thus  it  was  that  you  judg- 
ed of  the  Catholic  doctrines  of  Christianity 
in  your  letter  which  gave  occasion  to  this 
controversy.  You  say  it  is  our  faith  that  is 
contrary  to  the  doctrines  of  Christ;  I  say  it  is 
not  our  faith,  but  your  spy-glass;  and  I  pro- 
test against  your  mensuration  of  either  Ca- 
tholic or  Protestant  doctrine,  until  you  shall 
have  proved  that  your  instrument  of  measur- 
ment,  is  the  "infallible  rule  of  faith  estab- 
lished by  Christ,''  as  expressed  in  our  articles 
of  agreement.  Now  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  to  which,  some  will  contend 
that  you  pay  greater  deference  than  to  the 
Bible  itself,  declares  that  "the  infallible  rule 
of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture 
itself."  But  be  it  remembered  that  this  is  the 
enactment  not  of  the  Bible,  but  of  a  number 
of  men,  assembled  at  Westminster,  Anno 
Domini  1647.  by  order  of  Parliament,  to 
make  a  religion  for  the  united  kingdoms  of 
great  Britain  and  Ireland.  And  I  leave  it 
to  any  man  of  common  sense,  if  this  rule  of 
interpretation,  which  they  call  infallible  is  not 
a  mere  sophism — seeing  that  the  scripture  to 
be  interpreted  and  the  Scripture  by  ivhich  it 
is  to  be  interpreted  are  both  equally  subjected 
to  the  pocket-glass  of  the  reader's  private  in- 
terpretation. Would  it  not  be  absurd  to  say 
that  the  laws  of  this  commonwealth  expound 
their  own  meaning,  without  a  judge?  The 
same  Confession  of  Faith  says  that  "  the  su- 
preme judge  by  which  all  controversies  of  re- 
ligion are  to  be  determined,  can  be  no  other 
but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scrip- 
tures." But  this  is  only  begging  the  question 
and  does  not  reach  the  difficulty: — Seeing 
that  the  subject  of  dispute  turns  precisely  on 
this  question,  what  does  the  Holy  Spirit  say? — 
"  speaking  in  the  Scriptures." 

You  will  observe,  Rev.  Sir,  that  I  have 
said  nothing  on  the  subject  otthe  Catholic  rule 
of  faith — which,  however,  cannot  but  be  con- 
siderably, though  indirectly  strengthened,  if 
my  arguments  against  the  Protestant  principle 
cannot  be  met  by  evidences  stronger  on  the 
other  side,  than  those  I  have  put  forth.  It 
only  remains  for  you  to  show  that  the  Protes- 
tant rule  of  faith,  is  that  "  infallible  rule  es- 
tablished by  Christ  to  guide  us  in  matters  of 
religion  and  to  determine  disputes  in  his 
Church." 

The  Scriptures  are  indeed  the  inspired  word 
of  God;  as  such  they  have  been  guarded  and 
vindicated  by  the  church.  God  forbid  that 
I  should  ascribe  to  them,  the  errors  of  those 
who  claim  to  walk  under  their  guidance. 
The  only  object  I  have  had  in  view,  is  to 
show  that  the  rule  of  faith  adopted  by  Pro- 


testants, is  a  rule  which  will  lead  infallibly 
to  the  abuse  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  the  des- 
truction of  the  revealed  doctrines  of  Christi- 
anity. The  Bible  alone,  in  other  words, 
private  interpretation  may  serve  the  purpose 
of  the  Presbyterian  against  the  Catholic,  but 
it  will  equally  serve  the  purpose  of  the  Soci- 
nian  against  both. 

In  the  course  of  this  letter  I  have  spoken  with 
entire  freedom  of  the  principles  of  Protestant 
doctrine.  If  any  one  should  be  offended  at 
this,  I  beg  such  a  person  to  remember  that 
you  invited  me  to  the  discussion;  and  that 
having  accepted  the  invitation,  it  would  not 
be  generous  to  find  fault  with  me  for  speak- 
ing the  truth,  and  the  whole  truth,  provided 
I  give  facts  and  reasoning  to  prove  that  I 
speak  nothing  but  the  truth. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

Jno.  Hughes. 

P.  S.  In  your  last  letter,  published  under 
the  head  of  private  correspondence,  you  intro- 
duced several  topics  which  are  certainly  for- 
eign to  the  occasion  of  this  controversy.  The 
first  is,  quotations  from  your  letter  in  the 
Christian  Advocate,  to  show  that  you  were 
obliged  to  answer  the  difficulties  presented 
to  you  in  the  Baltimore  manuscript.  Now 
in  reference  to  this,  I  have  already  stated 
that  I  professed  to  know  nothing  of  the 
matter,  until  your  letter  published  in  August 
and  September  made  it  public,  that  you  had 
challenged,  "  Priests  and  Bishops,"  to  this 
discussion,  the  whole  field  of  controversy. 

The  second  is,  that  you  represent  me  as 
having,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Editor  of 
the  Philadelphian,  arraigned  the  clergy  of 
some  half  a  dozen  of  Protestant  denomina- 
tions for  manifesting  a  spirit  of  retreat 
during  the  Cholera.  This  may  of  course  en- 
list the  feelings  of  those  clergymen  against 
me  as  a  public  accuser;  but  I  appeal  to  the 
letter  itself  and  to  the  recollection  of  this 
community  to  say  whether  I  preferred  any 
charge  of  my  own  against  them.  On  the 
contrary,  I  took  up  the  charges  as  they 
had  been  preferred,  by  a  correspondent  of 
the  Philadelphian  signed  "  a  Presbyterian," 
against  the  Protestant  clergy,  for  abandoning 
their  posts  at  such  a  time.  It  was  in  the  act 
of  replying  to  these  charges  of  his  correspon- 
dent, by  the  Editor,  that  the  unfortunate 
insinuation  was  made  against  the  moral  purity 
of  the  Catholic  clergy,  which  after  all,  may 
have  been  a  lapsus  pennse.  This  being  the 
case,  how  could  you  represent  me  as  the  per- 
son framing  accusations  against  the  clergy- 


men  of  all  the  denominations  mentioned 
somewhat  ostentatiously,  in  your  last  letter? 
Now,  however,  I  assert,  that  the  testimony 
of  the  Physicians  who  attended  in  the  Cho- 
lera hospitals,  and  who  periled  their  lives  in 
the  duties  of  their  profession,  would  go  far 
to  establish  the  charge  as  suggested  by  "  a 
Presbyterian." 

Lastly  you  take  great  pains  to  show  in  all 
your  letters  how  much  you  have  to  do,  and 
how  much  leisure  "  sanctuary  quietude,"  re- 
mains on  my  hands,  intimating  thereby  the 
advantages  which  my  situation  gives  me  over 
you  in  the  conducting  of  this  controversy. 
Be  assured,  Rev.  Sir,  that  if  I  thought  the 
public  could  be  interested  in  the  detail  of  my 
avocations,  I  also,  could  make  out  a  tolerable 


list  of  duties;  enough  perhaps  to  turn  the 
scales  of  comparison.  But,  to  make  your 
mind  easy  on  the  subject  of  your  official  oc- 
cupations, I  beg  to  state  that  I  am  prepared, 
if  God  give  me  health,  to  sustain  the  Catho- 
lic argument  against  any  or  all  the  clergymen 
of  the  Synod  or  General  Assembly,  provided 
he  or  they  write  loith  your  signature  and  ad- 
here to  the  rules.  I  make  this  remark  not 
by  way  of  boasting,  but  because  you  allude 
to,  and  dwell  as  I  think,  too  emphatically  on 
the  multitude  of  your  official  duties.  My 
confidence  is  not  in  my  own  abilities,  that 
would  be  a  poor  and  pitiful  reliance,  but  it  is 
in  my  cause; — truth,  and  her  eternal  eviden- 
ces. JN0.  Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   2. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


New  York,  February  2d,  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

Sir, — It  is  one  of  my  principles  neither  to 
seek  nor  to  shun  controversy.  Of  the  origin 
of  this  discussion  the  public  will  judge;  and 
I  am  willing  to  abide  by  its  impartial  deci- 
sion. In  the  work  of  the  ministry,  it  has 
been  and  still  is  my  happiness,  to  enjoy  the 
most  peaceable  and  pleasant  communion  with 
my  brethren  of  those  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians, whom  Protestants  are  accustomed  to 
call  evangelical.  As  controversy  is  now 
clearly  my  duty,  I  think  myself  happy  that 
it  relates. to  a  system,  against  which  all  such 
Protestants  are  united,  and  with  whose  rise 
or  final  overthrow,  in  the  opinion  of  them  all, 
the  most  precious  hopes,  and  the  highest  in- 
terests of  men  and  nations,  as  well  as  the 
supreme  honour  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  insepa- 
rably blended. 

And  now  in  the  outset,  I  would  inquire  by 
what  right  you  say,  "  In  this  whole  contro- 
versy, every  inch  of  ground  which  is  not  dis- 
puted by  you  shall  be  looked  upon  as  so 
much  given  up  to  the  cause  of  Catholicity 
and  truth."  Is  it  then  presupposed  that 
you  are  the  representative  of  the  universal 
church  in  this  matter?  Is  the  residuum  of 
truth  with  you  ? — But  passing  this,  I  only 
remark  that,  whatever  you  may  arrogate,  I 
shall  confine  myself  as  far  as  possible,  to 
prominent  points,  and  hope  to  show  so  clearly 
your  fallacy  in  them,  that  what  may  be  left, 
will  not  be  worth  contending  for.  I  shall  of 
course  pursue  my  own  order  in  replying  to 
your  strictures  and  queries.  But  where  you 
repeat,  I  shall  not  be  expected  to  answer 
twice  the  same  thing,  and  where  you  confuse 
the  question  before  U3  for  want  of  order,  you 
must  not  expect  me  to  follow  your  example. 

The  first  point  for  discussion  is  the  Rule 
of  Faith.  It  is  agreed  that  "there  is  an  in- 
fallible rule  of  faith  established  by  Christ,  to 
guide  us  in  matters  of  religion,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  determining  disputes  in  the  church  of 
Christ."  I  regret  that  you  did  not  define  your 
own  rule  of  faith.  Ours  is  "The  Word  of 
God  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old   and  New   Testaments."     We  own  no 


judge  of  controversies  but  God.  Your  rule 
of  faith  is  "the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
with  the  books  called  Apocrypha,  as  contained 
in  the  old  Vulgate  Latin  Edition,  and  un- 
written traditions  interpreted  by  a  visible,  in- 
fallible judge  of  controversies,  according  to 
the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers."  (See 
council  of  Trent,  4th  Sess.  Decree  on  Tra- 
dition and  the  Scriptures;  and  Creed  of  Pope 
Pius  IT.) 

You  introduce  your  attack  on  our  rule,  by 
the  broad  assumption,  that  the  principle 
of  private  interpretation  has  been  the  cause 
of  all  the  divisions,  heresies,  and  other 
evils,  which  distract  and  weaken  the  church 
of  Christ.  You  bring  against  it  2  Pet.  i.  20, 
"No  prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any 
private  interpretation,"  and  you  say,  "Now 
the  Protestant  rule  of  faith  utterly  reverses 
this  declaration,  and  makes  all  Scripture  of 
every  private  interpretation."  In  this  you 
follow  your  standards,  certainly;  for  the 
Catechism  of  Pius  IV.  refers  to  the  same  pas- 
sage of  Scripture  in  answer  to  the  question, 
"  Why  may  not  every  particular  Christian 
have  liberty  to  interpret  the  Scripture  ac- 
cording to  his  own  private  judgment?"  &c. 
&c.  The  exposition  given  by  the  Pope  is  an 
infallible  commentary,  and  on  Peter's  Epis- 
tle. But  what  says  the  passage.  "Know- 
ing this  first  that  no  prophecy  of  the  Scrip- 
ture is  of  any  private  interpretation.  For 
the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the 
will  ot  man,  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." — 
(vs.  20,  21.  English  translation.)  Here  we 
remark,  1.  That  Peter  tells  the  people,  in  a 
previous  verse,  that  they  do  well  to  take  heed 
unto  the  more  sure  word  of  prophecy.  2.  It  is 
important  to  be  noticed  by  you  that  it  is  the 
prophecy  of  the  Scripture,  not  the  Scripture, 
that  is  obscure — 3.  Should  your  interpretation 
be  correct,  the  apostle  is  made  to  argue  thus — 
"  The  Scriptures  are  infallibly  revealed  or 
inspired,  and  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed  to 
them,  therefore  they  are  obscure,  too  obscure 
for  private  explanation."  A  strange  infer- 
ence, and  one  forcibly  against  yourself — for 
you  contend  for  the  clearness  of  your  church's 


10 


interpretations,  because  they  are  infallibly 
guided  by  God.  4.  The  vulgate  is  the  only 
authorized  version  in  your  church.  Yet  you 
and  the  catechism  of  your  church,  follow 
here,  our  English  translation  !  The  reason 
is  obvious.  It  appears  to  favour  you.  The 
vulgate  is  "Prophetia  Scripturre  propria  in- 
terpretatione,  non  fit."  "The  prophecy  of 
Scripture  is  not  made  by  a  man's  own  inter- 
pretation;" or  "no  prophecy  of  Scripture 
is  its  own  interpreter" — if  you  please.  Here 
the  interpretation  refers  to  prophecy — and  to 
the  prophets,  not  to  Scripture  at  large,  nor  to 
the  reader,  at  all.  As  if  he  had  said — Pro- 
phets do  not  prophecy  their  own  inventions, 
nor  are  their  predictions  to  be  taken  singly; 
or  in  an  insulated  way — but  every  prophecy 
is  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  part  of  a 
whole,  as  a  link  in  the  great  chain  of  prophe- 
cies. And  yet  an  infallible  judge,  followed 
by  a  distinguished  priest,  would  make  this 
passage  go  against  "  private  interpretation" 
of  the  Bible  !  It  is  almost  as  defective  a  use 
of  Scripture  as  one  once  made,  (he  was  a 
Protestant,)  who  was  arrested  in  the  act  of 
striking  another,  by  the  timely  recollection 
of  Paul's  injunction  to  Timothy,  "Lay 
hands  suddenly  on  no  man."  It  is  here  re- 
markable that  the  Apostle  Peter,  (claimed 
by  you  as  the  I.  Roman  Pontiff,)  in  his  last 
epistle,  bidding  farewell  to  the  church  before 
his  decease,  and  looking  down  with  a  shep- 
herd's love,  and  a  prophet's  eye  into  future 
ages,  while  giving  an  infallible  rule  for 
determining  the  sense  of  prophecies,  (See 
Horsely  on  this  place)  says  not  one  word 
about  an  infallible  judge.  Yet  surely  had 
there  been  one,  there  could  not  have  been  so 
fit  a  man,  or  so  fit  a  place  to  make  it  known. 
In  the  course  of  your  remarks,  you  seem 
to  claim  merit  to  your  rule,  from  particular 
difficulties  charged  by  you  on  the  Protestant 
rule,  yet  yours  may  be  chargeable  with  the 
same,  or  equal,  or  still  greater  difficulties. 
You  profess  to  bring  one  of  these  formally  to 
view  in  the  10th  head;  yet  as  this  is  a  sort  of 
subtle  thread  that  runs  through  your  argu- 
ment, let  us  cut  it  here,  and  thus  disentangle 
the  subject  from  that  error.  Take  then  for 
example  the  charge  of  uncertainty,  brought 
against  us  at  the  close  of  that  10th  head,  as 
follows,  "  The  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  so  far 
from  being  the  fountain  of  infallible  assur- 
ance, as  to  what  doctrines  we  should  believe, 
is  on  the  contrary  the  very  parent  of  uncer- 
tainty, and  cannot  consequently  be  that  "  in- 
fallible rule  established  by  Christ,  to  guide 
us  in  matters  of  religion,  and  to  determine 
disputes  in  his  church."     Now  let  us  look  at 


your  rule.  If  you  have  an  infallible,  visible 
judge  of  controversy,  how  do  you  get  at  the 
proof  of  his  infallibility?  Is  he  not  appoint- 
ed by  Christ?  You  say  he  is.  Then  you 
find  the  proof  of  it  in  the  sacred  Scriptures 
of  course.  How  then  do  you  interpret  those 
Scriptures  in  discovering  that  there  is  such  a 
judge?  Not  infallibly,  for  the  existence  of 
any  infallible  judge  is  yet  to  be  proved.  And 
as  regards  his  existence  you  are  left,  as  you 
must  admit,  to  decide  from  Scripture  by  your 
own  unaided  reason.  Your  judgment  on  the 
subject  is  formed  upon  the  same  principles  as 
ours.  Can  you  then  claim  any  more  certain- 
ty for  your  opinion  than  we  for  ours?  If  you 
can,  show  it,  if  not,  your  argument  against 
our  rule,  if  sound,  destroys  your  own. 

Again,  when  you  are  satisfied  by  private, 
fallible  judgment,  that  there  is  an  infallible 
judge,  you  must  seek  the  true  church,  for  in 
it  alone  is  he  to  be  found.  Then  how  do  you 
identify  the  true  church?  By  the  word  of 
God,  as  you  acknowledge.  You  find  out  the 
notes  of  the  true  church.  Of  these  notes  Bel- 
larmine  numbers  fifteen.  These  are  all  to  be 
proved  from  Scripture.  By  whom?  By  fallible 
men,  (for  the  infallible  judge  is  yet  to  be 
found;)  by  private  interpretation;  for  the  pub- 
lic oracle  is  yet  to  be  discovered  after  you 
have  searched  out  from  the  word  of  God  the 
raotes  of  the  true  church,  and  applied  them  to 
find  that  oracle.  Then  having  found  him 
you  go  back  to  ask  of  him,  what  the  word  of 
God  means.  Now  is  not  this  uncertain,  and 
fallible?  Yet  this  is  the  foundation  on  which 
your  system  of  infallibility  rests.  It  is  more 
uncertain  than  our  rule,  by  one  remove.  We 
go  directly  to  the  Bible  for  all  our  doctrines 
and  there  stop.  But  you  being  fallible,  take 
the  Bible  to  find  the  infallible  judge ;  and 
then  return  with  him  to  learn  what  the  Bible 
means.  But  when  you  have  got  the  decrees, 
confessions,  bulls,  &c.  of  this  infallible  judge, 
are  they  better  or  more  clear  than  our  Bible? 
Can  your  judge  be  more  lucid  than  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ?  And  after  you 
have  gotten  these  infallible  judgments  do  not 
they  also  need  an  interpreter  as  much  as  the 
Bible?  So  palpable  is  the  defect  here  that 
your  writers  own  that  you  have  no  infallibili- 
ty but  only  strong  probability,  "  prudential 
motives,"  and  "  moral  certainty"  in  find- 
ing out  the  true  church,  and  the  infallible 
judge  in  her.  The  Rev.  Mr.  M'Guire  in 
"the  discussion,''  &c.  page  134, owns  "that 
the  catholic  has  only  to  exercise  his  private 
judgment  upon  the  Scripture-proofs  of  the 
authority  of  the  church:  that  once  established, 
the  Catholic  is  enabled  to  make  an  act  of 


11 


faith  upon  divine  authority."  Once  estab- 
lished. But  how  establish  it?  Ah,  here  is  the 
fatal  gap!  A  house  without  a  foundation!  If 
"  private  judgment"  must  find  out  your  infal- 
lible judge  why  may  it  not  also  find  out,  what 
we  need  to  guide  us  to  God?  May  we  not 
as  certainly  determine  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  and  its  true  meaning,  as  you  the  notes 
of  the  church,  and  the  infallible  judge? 
May  we  not  be  as  certain  of  "the  divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ"  as  you  of  the  true  church? 
May  we  not  rest  as  securely  on  the  infal- 
libility of  this  great  and  only  head  of  the 
church,  and  of  his  inspired  apostles,  as  you 
on  the  infallibility  of  your  judge  of  contro- 
versies? If,  without  infallibility,  you  can 
reach  an  infallible  judge,  may  we  not  with- 
out it  also  reach  certainty  and  safety? 

I.  But  though  there  are  other  points  of  so- 
phistry which  I  had  wished  to  expose  on  the 
threshhold,  I  will  for  want  of  space,  pass  to 
meet  your  objections.  The  first  is  "  the  Bi- 
ble is  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith.  But  the 
Bible  was  not  written  until  more  than  half 
a  century  after  Christ's  death — therefore  the 
Bible  alone  could  not  have  been  the  only 
rule  of  faith  established  by  Christ."  (The 
reader  is  referred  to  the  entire  paragraph.) 
Do  you  mean  then  to  say  that  the  Bible  was 
not  written  until  fifty  years  after  Christ's 
death.  A  very  small  part  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament was  not.  But  it  is  a  strong  figure  of 
speech  to  say  the  Bible  was  not  written. 
The  Old  Testament  canon  was  sanctioned 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Before  the  New 
Testament  was  written,  and  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  Christ  and  his  apostles  on  earth, 
the  Old  Testament  with  their  inspired  in- 
structions, whether  spoken  or  written,  at- 
tested by  miracles,  was  the  infallible  rule  of 
faith.  Before  the  death  of  the  last  Apostle, 
the  entire  New  Testament  was  written. 
Now  you  will  hardly  say  that  the  paper,  ink, 
type,  lids,  &c.  &c.  of  the  Bible,  make  the 
Revelation,  though  they  record  it.  If  not, 
then  all  who  had  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
inspired  instructions  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, had  (essentially)  our  rule  of  faith — and 
if  you  proye  yourself  inspired  by  the  same 
miracles  they  gave,  we  will  take  you  too  for 
our  infallible  guides.  But  they  were  to 
have  no  such  successors,  and  their  writings 
were  intended  to  preserve  and  perpetuate 
their  infallible  instructions.  Hence,  either 
the  Apostles  did  notwrile  the  same  doctrines 
which  Christ  and  they  spoke,  or  else  we  have 
the  same  rule  of  faith  with  those  who  died 
before  all  the  New  Testament  was  written. 

II.  You  call  for  the  "  Scriptural  warrant 


for  making  the  Bible  alone  the  rule  of  faith" 
and  require  "chapter  and  verse."  You  concede 
that  "the  Scriptures  are  indeed  the  inspired 
word  of  God  and  as  such  have  been  guarded 
and  vindicated  by  the  Church."  What  then 
are  the  Scriptures? — A  revelation  from  God 
to  man,  written  by  inspired  men — for  the  use 
of  the  race — containing  infinitely  important 
communications  in  which  all  are  interested, 
addressed  to  the  reason,  conscience  and  af- 
fections of  men — and  as  clearly  intelligible 
(or  will  you  dispute  this?)  as  other  books. 

What  then  can  these  Scriptures  be  but  our 
ride  of  faith,  and,  as  they  are  inspired,  an  in- 
fallible rule?  And  if  no  specific  statement 
to  the  contrary  be  found  in  them,  they  must 
of  course  be  regarded  as  the  only  one.  Here 
then  I  remark,  1.  The  presumption  from  the 
admitted  fact  of  its  being  a  revelation  is,  that 
the  Bible  is  our  only  infallible  rule  of  faith. 
2.  If  it  be  not  so,  it  is  the  duty  of  those  who 
deny  it  to  prove  their  statement.  You  claim 
a.  prescriptive  right,  to  dictate  to  man  what  this 
revelation  means,  and  what  they  shall  believe. 
This  is  "a  dominion  over  their  faith"  that 
Paul  the  inspired  author  of  a  large  part  of  the 
New  Testament,  disclaims — (2.  Cor.  i.  24.) 
It  is  a  claim  abhorrent  from  reason,  at  war  with 
the  rights  of  conscience,  and  a  usurpation  of 
the  prerogative  of  God.  If  not,  you  ought  in 
all  propriety  to  prove  it,  it  being  a  most  unu- 
sual claim.  3.  The  only  adequate  proof  that 
can  be  given  of  it  will  be  a  miracle — con- 
vincing the  very  senses  as  well  as  reasons  of 
men,  that  you  have  a  power  from  God  to 
rule  our  faith,  and  if  it  need  be,  add  new 
Scriptures  (see  John  iii.  3.)  I  am  happy  to 
know  that  your  church  concedes  this,  by  her 
pretended  miracles,  while  her  utter  failure  to 
work  them  explodes  all  claim  to  infallibility. 
Christ  has  thus  attested  his  mission  and  his 
claims:  so  did  his  inspired  apostles.  You 
claim  to  succeed  them  in  these  respects. 
Then  give  the  same  proof  of  your  claim.  Until 
you  do, the  world  cannotadmit  the  pretension. 
It  is  absurd  and  most  presumptuous.  4.  But 
what  proof  have  you  from  the  Bible  "  chap- 
ter and  verse"  of  such  a  right  viz.  "  that  your 
church  has  in  her,  a  human  infallible  judge 
of  controversies  that  the  book  called  Apoch- 
rypha  are  part  of  the  word  of  God,  that  "  un- 
written traditions"  are  of  equal  authority 
with  the  Bible,  and  that  all  these  "interpret- 
ed according  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers"  make  the  true  rule  of  faith?  Pro- 
duce it  "  chapter  and  verse  or  else  your  rule 
is  a  mere  assumption." 

Here  we  might  safely  rest  this  head,  for 
you  are  bound  up  inextricably. — But,  5.  We 


12 


have  proof,  "chapter  and  verse"  of  what 
you  require,  and  though  not  ipsissima  verba, 
the  very  words  you  prescribe,  yet  equivalent 
words.  See  then,  Isaiah  viii.  20.  "  To  the 
law  and  to  the  testimony,  if  they  speak  not 
according  to  them,  it  is  because  there  is  no 
light  in  them."  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  17.  "And 
that  from  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise 
unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  in- 
spiration of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doc- 
trine, for  reproof,  for  correction,  tor  instruc- 
tion in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God 
may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
all  good  works."  You  have  given  us  a  gar- 
bled extract  from  this  passage,  comprised  in 
only  four  words.  Here  you  have  it  in  full. 
Here  is  1.  The  Holy  Scripture,  all  of  which 
is  inspired  and  therefore  infallible.  2.  It  is 
able  to  make  wise  to  salvation — without  any 
human  judge  or  help,  through  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus.  3.  It  answers  all  the  ends  of  a  divine 
revelation,  "  is  profitable,"  and  adequate 
"  for  doctrine,"  "  for  reproof"  or  confutation 
as  to  all  sin,  error,  &c  &c.  "  for  correction," 
"  for  instruction  in  righteousness."  Is  any 
thing  wanting  here?  4.  By  it  the  minister 
of  Christ,  "  the  man  of  God,"  as  well  as  the 
private  Christian,  "may  be  perfect,"  "tho- 
roughly furnished"  without  any  but  the 
Holy  Spirit's  teaching,  "unto  all  good  works." 
5.  Timothy  was  assured  of  all  this;  and 
needing  no  change,  "  should  continue  in 
these  things."  If  this  does  not  constitute 
an  infallible  rule,  for  all  uses,  whether  "  de- 
termining disputes,"  or  "guiding  us  in  mat- 
ters of  religion,''  I  am  at  a  loss  to  imagine 
what  does.  Here  then  the  word  of  God  is 
the  "very  standard"  which  you  justly  say, 
it  is  so  important  to  settle;  and  it  is  fully 
and  infallibly  sufficient  as  a  rule  of  faith. 

III.  A  rule  of  faith  supposes  a  God  to 
give  and  a  mind  to  receive  and  use  it.  My 
God,  my  Bible  and  my  mind  are  therefore 
supposed,  in  my  use  of  this  rule.  Now  for 
your  argument.  It  is  profound  indeed! 
It  runs  thus: — The  Bible  alone,  '  on  the 
shelf,"  is  one.  A  man  reads  it:  that  makes 
two;  therefore  the  Bible  alone  is  no  rule  of 
faith.  And  again: — The  reader  is  fallible — 
the  reader  and  the  Bible  make  the  rule  of 
Protestants,  therefore  the  rule  is  fallible! 
Such  logic,  dear  Sir,  will  not  soon  assert 
your  claim  to  infallibility. 

IV.  Under  this  head  you  say  that  the  Bi- 
ble alone  cannot  be  the  rule  of  faith  because 
we  are  all  bound  as  Christians  to  believe  that 
t\\e  Bible  is  an  authentic  and  inspired  book,  and 


you  defy  any  one  to  prove  this  from  the  Bible. 
So  are  we  required  to  believe  in  the  existence 
of  a  God,  yet  you  do  not  go  to  the  Bible 
tor  the  proof  of  this  great  doctrine.  It 
is  presupposed  from  the  very  existence  of 
things.  Just  so,  the  authenticity  of  the  sa- 
cred volume  is  assumed  at  the  outset  when  it 
is  admitted  as  a  revelation  and  a  rule  of  faith. 
And  yet  you  demand  a  proof  of  its  being  authen- 
tic &c.  from  itself,  or  deny  its  being  the  alone 
rule  of  faith!  Suppose  an  infidel  were  to  ar- 
gue thus  with  you :  Your  revelation  demands 
of  you  a  belief  of  a  Deity,  but  by  the  Bible 
alone  the  fact  of  his  existence  cannot  be  pro- 
ved, therefore  your  revelation  is  defective.'' 
You  would  laugh  him  to  scorn.  How  then 
will  Protestants  regard  your  application  of 
the  same  reasoning  to  overturn  their  rule  of 
faith?  Admitting  it  to  be,  as  you  do,  a 
Revelation  from  God,  you  ask  for  that  proof 
of  its  authenticity,  &c.  which  is  inseparably 
connected  with  and  presupposed  in  the  very 
existence  of  a  revelation  !  Your  latent  mean- 
ing in  all  that  paragraph  is,  that  we  need  the 
church  to  tell  us  what  is  Bible  and  what  is 
not.  Thus,  by  the  true  church,  you  would 
prove  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible.  And 
how  do  you  verify  the  true  chnrch  ?  By  the 
marks — by  the  Bible.  You  will  prove  the 
church  by  the  Bible,  and  then  the  Bible  by 
the  church;  and  thus  your  argument  will  run 
in  a  constant  circle,  proving  nothing  but  its 
own  absurdity. 

V.  Here  you  argue,  (see  the  head,)  that 
it  was  not  universally  known,  until  the 
end  of  the  fifth  century,  what  books  were  to 
be  regarded  as  inspired  Scriptures, — there- 
fore, before  that  time,  there  was  no  infallible 
rule,  or  if  there  was,  it  was  not  the  Bible 
alone.  I  reply,  if  there  had  been  an  infallible 
living  judge  of  controversy  in  the  church  at  this 
time,  who  was  authorized  as  you  say  your 
church  is,  to  settle  what  books  were  "  inspir- 
ed Scripture,"  then  how  comes  it,  that  it 
was  not  universally  known,  which  they  were 
for  five  hundred  years?  But  if  there  were 
no  such  infallible  judge,  what  becomes  of  your 
rule  of  faith?  You  say  in  the  4th  head,  "  we 
are  bound  as  Christians  to  believe  the  Bible 
is  authentic  and  inspired,"  and  again  that 
"  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  have  been  re- 
garded by  the  Catholic  Church,  from  the  be- 
ginning as  fixed  stars  in  the  firmament  of  reve- 
lation." "  She  has  ascertained  and  certified 
their  existence,  from  the  commencement,"  &tc. 
therefore  it  follows,  that  thechurch  knew  from 
the  beginning  which  books  were  authentic, 
and  taught  as  (one  of  her  doctrines)  which 
those  books  were.     When  you  say  then,  they 


13 


were  not  known,  you  contradict  yourself.  If 
you  cover  your  retreat  under  the  word  "  uni- 
versally," then  either  the  church  concealed 
what  she  knew,  or  wherever  the  church  was 
known,  this  was  known.  But  I  deny  that  there 
was  this  uncertainty  about  the  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture until  the  end  of  the  fifth  century.  Some 
contend  that  it  was  settled  by  the  apostle  John. 
Origen  A.  D.  210,  Eusebius  in  315,  Atha- 
nasius  in  315,  Cyril,  340,  Council  of  Laodi- 
cea,  364,  &c.  &c.  give  catalogues  of  the 
inspired  books.  Most  of  them  give  an  exact 
catalogue  of  the  New  Testament.  Some  who 
were  certain  as  to  the  rest,  were  doubtful 
only  as  to  four  of  these  many  books.  In  the 
mean  time,  the  churches  had  "all  the  books;" 
and  these  doubts  of  some,  did  not  make  it 
less  truly  the  real  and  full  rule.  How 
strange  then  that  you  should  speak  of  the 
Bible  at  large,  as  uncertain  until  near  the 
end  of  the  fifth  century,  when  all  the  books 
of  the  Old,  and  all  of  the  New  Testament, 
except  four,  were  certainly  known  before  the 
death  of  the  Apostle  John.  As  to  those  who 
lived  before  the  "art  of  printing  was  in- 
vented," and  those  who  "  cannot  read,"  it  is 
an  unworthy  quibble;  for  I  suppose  you  will 
not  deny  that  in  each  case,  they  could  as 
well  understand  the  fallible  interpretation  of 
Scripture  by  a  Protestant  preacher,  as  the 
fallible  interpretation  of  your  decrees  of 
councils,  bulls,  &c,  by  a  Romanist? 

VI.  and  VII.  You  say  the  Bible  alone,  or 
the  Bible  and  private  interpretation  have  set- 
tled no  disputes,  but  promoted  them.  They 
have  also  promoted  heresy.  But  the  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith  is  designed  to  settle  disputes 
and  promote  unity.  Therefore  the  Bible 
alone  cannot  be  the  infallible  rule  of  faith. 
Poor  Bible!  what  a  transgressor  thou  hast 
been!  How  right  was  it  for  the  Council  of 
Trent  to  lay  thee  on  the  shelf!  To  all 
you  say  on  this  point  I  answer,  your  rule 
has  worked  worse  than  ours,  to  say  the 
least,  for  you  have  either  put  an  end  to 
disputes  by  force,  and  so  wanted  not  a 
rule  but  a  ruler,  or  driven  off  church  after 
church,  and  nation  after  nation  from  you. 
How  did  you  settle  the  dispute  with  the 
Waldenses  and  Albigenses?  How,  with  the 
Greek  church,  and  how  with  the  Reformers? 
Again,  you  argue  from  the  abuse  of  a  thing 
against  its  perfection — now  when  we  say  the 
Bible  is  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  com- 
petent to  settle  disputes,  we  mean  that  it  is 
a  sufficient,  not  a  compulsory  means — nor 
do  we  say  that  it  is  incapable  of  abuse.  Will 
you  say  this  of  your  rule  ?  Has  it  not  been 
abused?     When  a  rule  is  abused,  it  is   the 


fault  of  men,  not  of  the  Bible.  This  you  ad- 
mit when  you  say  that  an  infallible  rule  must 
"  give  to  those  who  abide  by  its  decision,  an 
infallible  certainty,"  &jx.  So  we  say.  But 
what  if  they  will  not  abide.  ?  Is  there  any 
remedy?  I  know  of  none  but  the  Inquisi- 
tion and  the  like.  If  you  are  willing  to  take 
this  ground,  you  are  welcome  to  it.  Once 
more — your  argument  would  lead  to  this, 
that  as  no  rule  which  can  be  abused  is  infal- 
lible, and  some  men  will  abuse  the  best 
rules,  therefore  a  rule  cannot  be  infallible. 

Your  VHIth  &  IXth  heads  are  only  chan- 
ges rung  on  the  same  fallacious  reasoning  ex- 
posed above.  (The  reader  will  please  exam- 
ine them.)  The  sum  of  the  argument  is 
this — "Do  you  not  admit,  that  in  holding 
Presbyterian  doctrine,  you  may  be  in  error — 
if  so,  what  confidence  have  you  in  the  infalli- 
bility of  your  guides — then  you  are  com- 
pelled to  admit  by  your  own  rule  that  you 
may  be  wrong,  and  the  Unitarian  right."  I 
answer  do  you  not  admit  that  you  may  be 
wrong  in  finding  out  your  infallible  church  ? 
Then  what  certainty  is  there,  and  what  con- 
fidence have  you;  in  the  infallibility  of  your 
guides  ?  Again — Joannah  Southcoat  claimed 
to  be  infallible — and  so  the  Shakers — now 
as  they  use  your  rule  of  faith,  no  less  than 
Unitarians  ours,  may  they  not  be  right,  and 
you  wrong  ?  Yet  on  such  logic  hangs  your 
argument. 

In  your  IXth  head  you  apply  the  above. 
You  suppose  four  Presbyterian  preachers,(and 
include  me  in  the  number,)  one  becomes  Uni- 
tarian—another S wedenborgian— and ,  I  happy, 
honoured  I,  become  a  Papist,  by  light  break- 
ing in  on  my  dark  soul.  Now  we  must  of 
course  disperse,  and  jointhese  various  people. 
Hence,  as  under  our  rule  we  may  do  this,  that 
rule  "\oorks  destruction,"  and  is  not  infalli- 
ble. Let  me  consummate  this  felicitous  illus- 
tration. We  are  told  in  Genebrard's  Chron- 
icles, A.  D.  904.  "that  for  150  years,  fifty 
Popes  had  been  apostate,  rather  than  apos- 
tolical." There  is  then  no  lack  of  subjects. 
For  the  first  take  Pope  Liberius,  who  be- 
came Arian:  then  Pope  Honorius,  a  Heretic, 
who  was  condemned  by  a  council:  Pope  Mar- 
cellinus,  an  Idolater.  You,  Sir,  may  be  the 
fourth — with  your  faith  unshaken,  and  on  the 
high  road  to  the  Vatican  and  the  Triple 
crown.  Now  ought  not  one  of  these  to  join 
the  Arians;  another  the  Swedenborgians; 
another  the  Gentile  Idolaters;  and  would 
not  this  "work  destruction?"  Yet  this  is 
the  operation  of  your  rule,  or  at  least  it  is  in 
spite  of  your  rule,  which  must  therefore, 
on  your   own    reasoning,    be    defective.    I 


14 


could  apply  your  argument  to  your  councils 
too;  but  I  forbear. 

X.  The  argument  on  certainty,  I  have 
answered  in  the  introduction. 

And  now,  Sir,  having  waded  through  the 
queries,  which  you  have  so  magisterially 
propounded  to  me,  I  would  propose  to  your 
consideration  the  following  difficulties,  to 
which  I  also  expect  a  prompt  reply. 

1.  You  prove  your  church  infallible  as  a 
judge  of  controversies,  by  true  notes  or 
marks  which  are  very  numerous.  They  em- 
brace sanctity  of  doctrine,  agreement  in  doc- 
trine with  the  primitive  church,  &c.  &c. 
It  presupposes  much  knowledge  of  Scrip- 
ture to  find  them  out.  Now  you  must 
find  out  all  these  notes,  to  get  at  the 
true  church;  and  in  her  to  find  the  infallible 
judge.  The  question  then  is,  are  you  in- 
fallible in  finding  out  these  notes?  Is  it 
not  by  private,  or  at  least  fallible  judg- 
ment? Then  as  your  infallibility  is  built  on 
fallible  judgment,  is  it  not  an  empty  name, 
and  a  presumptuous  pretension? 

2.  As  to  the  judge  of  controversies,  you 
say  in  the  fourth  column,  "  would  it  not  be 
absurd  to  say,  that  the  laws  of  this  common- 
wealth expound  their  own  meaning,  without 
a  judse?     Now  let  us  look  at  this  illustra 


Bible,  if  translated  by  Catholic  (Roman)  au- 
thors. "  But  if  any  one  have  the  presump- 
tion to  read  or  possess  it,  without  such  a 
written  permission,  he  shall  not  receive  abso- 
lution, until  he  has  first  delivered  up  such 
Bible,'"  &c.  Booksellers  selling  to  men  with- 
out license  were  liable  to  penalties.  The  liber- 
ty of  the  press  also  is  directly  violated  in  that 
same  document.  Not  only  in  Rome,  but  "  in 
other  places"  the  vicar  or  inquisitor  or  other 
authorised  person  must  examine,  approve  and 
permit  a  book  to  be  published!  Does  this 
seem  like  friendship  to  the  discussion  of  the 
Scriptures  and  of  general  knowledge? 

4.  Your  living  judge  of  controversies  being 
infallible,  your  system  ought  to  be  uniform 
and  unchangeable,  admitting  of  no  new  doc- 
trines and  no  contradictions — and  this  you 
allow  when  you  say,  "  Your  doctrines  have 
been  from  the  beginning,  as  fixed  stars  in  the 
firmaments  of  Revelation,"  and  the  church 
"knew  them,"  by  the  infallible  rule  of  judg- 
ment "from  the  beginning-"  I  give  only  a 
few  examples  of  heresy  and  variation,  and  in- 
novation in  doctrine,  to  disprove  this  asser- 
tion. 

In  the  fourth  century,  Liberius,  the  Pope, 
signed  the  Arian  creed — and  the  great  body 
of  the  clergy  became  Arian.  Hilary  called 
his  confession  the  "Arian  Perfidy."    Arian- 


tion.  The  judge  in  the  commonwealth  must  ism  was  sanctioned  by  the  Papal  Church,  that 
be  of  neither  party.  But  your  judge  of  con-  is,  by  the  Pontiff,  a  general  council,  and  the 
troversies  is  always  a  party  in  the  case,  un-  collective  clergy.  1  need  not  refer  to  Hono- 
less  you  contend  with  some,  that  he  is  above  !  rius,  who  in  the  seventh  century  was  an  ac 
law.  The  civil  judge  binds  not  the  con- 
science; for  though  he  deprive  me  of  my 
property,   the   law  does   not  require  me 


the  law  does  not  require  me  to 
think  w"ith  him;  but  your  judge  lords  it  over 
the  conscience,  which  none  can  rightly  do  but 
God.  The  civil  judge  is  easily  found  out; 
but  can  you  identify  your  infallible  judge  ? 
Is  it  the  Pope,  or  a  general  council,  or  both 
united,  or  the  church  at  large  ?  What  would 
a,  civil  judge  be  worth,  whom  nobody  could 
find? 

3.  You  say  in  your  first  column,  that  your 
church  is  "  not  hostile  to  the  dissemination 
and  perusal  of  the  Holy  Scriptures."  Yet 
the  4th  Rule  of  the  "Expurgatory  Index," 
under  the  authority  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
and  the  Pope,  says  in  so  many  words,  "  In- 
asmuch as  it  is  manifest  from  experience, that 
if  the  Holy  Bible  translated  into  the  vulgar 
tongue,  be  indiscriminately  allowed  to  every 
one,  the  temerity  of  men  will  cause  more 
evil  than  good  to  arise  from  it" — and  it  goes 
on  to  say  that  permission  may  be  given  in 
writing  by  bishops  or  inquisitors,  to  such  as 
priests  or  confessors  recommend,  to  read  the 


knowledged  and  condemned  heretic 

As  to  the  Pope's  supremacy,  there  are  no 
less  than  three  systems  in  your  church. 
Some  contend  for  a  mere  presidency;  such 
are  Du  Pin,  Rigathius,  Filaster,  Gibert  and 
Paolo.  The  councils  of  Pisa,  Constance  and 
Basil,  sustained  this  view.  Others  make 
him  an  unlimited  monarch,  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical. This  is  the  Italian  school,  and  the 
Jesuits  agree  with  them.  The  councils  of 
Florence,  l.ateran  and  Trent,  patronized 
this  system.  Another  system  set  him  by  the 
side  of  God.  The  canon  law  in  the  gloss, 
denominates  jhe  Pope,  'the  Lord  God.' 
Bellarmine  says,  [4.  5.  ]  "  Si  papa  erraret, 
praecipiendo  vitia,"  &c.  "  If  the  Pope  should 
err  in  commanding  vices,  and  prohibiting  vir- 
tues, the  church  would  be  bound  to  believe 
vices  to  be  virtues,  and  virtues  to  be  vices." 
These  views  were  largely  patronized. 

As  to  the  seat  of  infallibility  in  the  church, 
there  is  neither  union  nor  uniformity.  There 
are  no  less  than  four  systems  on  this  subject, 
stoutly  advocated  in  different  ages,  by  wri- 
ters, popes,  and  councils;  and  your  church 


15 


is  not  now  united  upon  it.  One  system 
places  infallibilty  in  the  Pope;  another  in  a 
general  council,'  a  third  in  the  two  united; 
and  the  fourth  in  the  church  collective. 

You  are  not  agreed  among  yourselves  even 
which  are  the  general  councils.  As  to  image 
worship,  there  are  three  parties.  (Bellar- 
mine  2.  20.)  One  party  allows  the  use  of 
them, — another  the  lower  worship — a  third, 
the  real  divine  worship  of  them.  The  coun- 
cil of  Nice,  says  Bellarmine,  agreed  with  the 
second.  The  ups  and  downs  of  images  in 
the  church,  for  a  whole  century  I  not  need 
here  detail. 

As  to  the  validity  of  oaths, — The  third 
General  Council  of  the  Lateran,  16th  Canon, 
says,  "An  oath  contrary  to  ecclesiastical 
utility  is  perjury — not  an  oath."  Labb.  13. 
426.  The  4th  Lateran,  a  general  council,  in 
A.  D.  1215,  3d  canon,  "  freed  the  subjects 
of  such  sovereigns  as  embraced  heresy,  from 
their  fealty."  Labb.  13.  934.  The  guilty  ce- 
lebrity of  the  Council  of  Constance,  I  need 
not  dwell  on. — Delahogue,  Tract,  de  euch. 
p.  214.  art.  2,  says,  that  denying  the  cup  to  the 
laity  did  not  begin  until  the  12th  century. 
Now,  it  is  an  approved  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  Rome. 

Lastly — In  the  letter  from  Bononia  by 
the  three  bishops  to  Pope  Julius  the  3d., 
Sept.  20th,  1553,  "on  the  way  to  establish 
the  Church  of  Rome,"  are  these  confessions: 
"  This  is  a  downright  Lutheran  maxim,  that 
it  is  not  lawful  to  depart  in  the  least  degree 
from  the  things  that  were  used  among  the 
Apostles.  But  who  of  us  doth  not  every 
day  often  depart  from  them  ?  Indeed  in  our 
churches  we  scarcely  retain  the  least  shadow 
of  doctrine  and  discipline  which  flourished 
in  the  times  of  the  Apostles ;  but  have 
brought  in  quite  another  of  our  own."  (More 
of  this  hereafter.)  See  Preservative  against 
Popery,  vol.  1.  p.  88. 

Amidst  such  heresies,  variations,  corrup- 
tions and  novelties  of  doctrine  and  worship, 
where  is  your  infallible  judge  of  controver- 
sies ? 

5.  Your  rule  of  faith  requires  you,  as  your 
oath  of  office  binds  you,  to  interpret  "un- 
written traditions"  and  the  Bible,  according 
to  the  "unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers." 
Now,  I  ask,  is  there  any  such  unanimous 
consent  ?  If  not,  how  can  your  rule  be  ap- 
plied ?  If  there  be,  will  you  make  it  ap- 
pear? 

6.  The  Apocryphal  books,  as  we  call  them, 
were  excluded  from  the  canon  ot  the  Jews. 
They  were  not  recognised  as  canonical  by 
Christ  or   his   apostles;  nor  by  the  earliest 


fathers.     They  do  not  claim  to  be  inspired 

they  are  unworthy  of  credit,  except  as  eccle- 
siastical histories.  Yet  you  introduce  them 
into  the  canon — what  proof  have  you  of  then- 
claim  to  tlii"  ?—  i    *  "  -*"•* 

7.  What  right  has  the  Church  of  Rome  to 
make  "  unwritten  traditions"  a  part  of  the 
rule  of  faith  ?  Why  have  they  been  left  un- 
written if  they  are  known  ?  Can  she  trace 
this  mass  of  human  inventions  up  to  the 
teachings  ot  the  Lord,  and  his  inspired 
apostles  ?  If  not,  how  can  you  require  us  to 
believe  them?  Why  not  record  them,  that 
we  may  know  them,  and  that  they  may  be 
preserved  ? 

8.  Your  rule  of  faith  usurps  the  preroga- 
tive of  Jesus  Christ,  "  sitting  in  the  temple  of 
God,"  "  as  God."  For  God  alone  can  dic- 
tate what  we  are  to  believe.  He  tells  us  "to 
call  no  man  master."  "  If  we  must  believe 
what  the  church  believes,"  then  we  are  no 
longer  at  liberty  to  inquire,  and  think,  or 
even  believe;  for  belief  is  on  evidence,  not 
dictation. 

Your  judge  has  taught  as  infallible  doc- 
rines  things  which  violate  the  natural  senses, 
and  thus  undermine  the  evidence  from  mira- 
cles in  support  of  revelation  itself— as  for  ex- 
ample— Transubstantiation.  It  is  also  ab- 
horrent to  true  religion  not  to  say  every 
reverent  feeling,  that  a  priest  can  make 
his  God,  then  sacrifice  him,  then  give  him 
to  the  people,  then  worship  him,  and  then  eat 
him. 

10.  Finally  the  system  which  includes  an 
infallible  living  judge  of  controversies,  to 
guide  us  in  matters  of  religion,  and  to  regu- 
late not  only  faith,  but  worship  and  morals, 
ought  not  to  be  corrupt  in  its  tendency  or  to- 
lerate corruptions  in  morals  and  manners. 
Now  if  I  can  show  this  to  be  the  tendency  of 
your  rule  in  operation,  it  must  prove  the  rule 
not  only  vicious  but  ruinous,  and  therefore 
not  infallible.  I  will  refer  you  to  a  memo- 
rable letter  written  to  Paul  3d,  by  nine  dis- 
tinguished prelates  of  Rome,  England,  Brech- 
dusium,  Verona,  &c.  &c,  shortly  before  the 
Reformation,  on  the  state  of  the  church  and 
the  need  of  Reformation.  They  mention 
abuses  as  follows — Ordaining  uneducated 
youth,  of  evil  manners — Simony,  as  being 
general — Pastors  withdrawing  from  their 
flocks,  which  were  intrusted  to  hirelings — 
Clergymen  guiUy  of  sins,  and  then  by  ex- 
emption from  penalty— The  orders  of  the  Re- 
ligious so"Hegenerate  that  monasteries  ought 
to  be  abolished — Sacrileges  committed  with 
the  nuns  in  most  monasteries — Rome  espe- 
cially corrupt,  though  the  "mother  of  the 


16 


church,  and  the  mistress  of  churches."  " In 
Jine,"  they  say,  "  The  name  of  Christ  is  for- 
gotten by  the  nations,  and  by  us  the  clergy, 
and  the  vengeance  of  God  which  we  deserve 
is  ready  to  fall  on  us!"  "laslTif  this  be  the 
fruit  of  infallibility,  or  could  be  patronized  by 
a  living  infallible  judge? 

Now,  Sir,  if  you  will  apply  your  teles- 
cope to  the  Roman  heavens,  and  narrow- 
ly survey  the  permutations  of  the  "stars" 
you  boast  of  as  "fixed,"  you  will  find  many 
a  shifting  planet,  and  many  a  star,  which  in 
apostolic  days  rose  upon  the  church,  quench- 
ed from  your  horizon. 

And  these  are  the  things  which  led  "  those 


few  individuals  "  as  you  call  them,  to  assert 
that  your  church  was  corrupt  and  needed 
reform.     And  was  there  not  a  cause? 

It  sounds  not  a  little  strange,  in  the  light  of 
these  facts,  which  mark  the  growingcorruption 
and  successive  collapses  of  your  unchangeable 
church  to  hear  you  talking  of  the  "  Presbyte- 
rian church  falling  apart,  under  the  pressure 
of  private  interpretation!"     Under  what  is 

yours  falling? We  are  willing  to  trust  the 

Presbyterian  church  in  the  hands  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Truth  and  liberty  is  her  blessed  ban- 
ner.    Yours,  respectfully, 

John  Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   3. 


KuSe  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  February  14,  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — On  the  evening  of  the  9th  inst. 
I  had  the  pleasure  of  receiving  your  reply, 
after  a  lapse  of  eighteen  days  from  that,  on 
which  I  placed   my  first  letter  in  the  hands 
of  the  Editor,  with  a  request  that  he  would 
furnish  you  with  a  copy  as  soon  as  possible. 
Our  readers  were  generally  disappointed,  at 
your  not  answering  in  order,  according  to  the 
time  prescribed  in  our  rules.     It  was  admit- 
ted, however,  that  you  had  reasons  for  pro- 
crastinating :  and  many  of  those,  who  have 
never  r-eflected  on  the  difficulty  of  the  task, 
accounted  for  the  delay,  by  supposing  that 
you  meant  to  overwhelm  your  adversary  if 
the  energy   of  the  onset— that  you    would 
throw  the  whole  strength  of  your  cause,  and 
of  your  mind  into  your  first  paper,  and  thus 
insure  a  prompt  and  triumphant  vindication 
of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith — a  vindication, 
which  would  not  only  refute,  but  extermi- 
nate, all  the   arguments    that   had  been,  or 
that  might  be  raised  against  it.     For  my  own 
part,  I  had  no   such  anticipations.     But   I 
must  confess,  that  I   did  expect  something 
more  energetic  and  to  the  purpose.     I  have 
read  your  letter  carefully  ;  and  although  you 
attempt  to  neutralize  my  reasoning  by  re- 
criminations and  glosses,  which  are  ingenious 
enough,   still   I  am    utterly   unable  to   dis- 
cover any  thing,  that  reaches  the  difficulty, 
or  approaches  the  character  of  manly  argu- 
ment.    Before   I    proceed    to    review    those 
Portions  of  it  which  relate  to  the  subject  of 
iscussion  "  for  the  time  being,"  (see  rules,) 
I  shall  make  a  few  observations  on  certain 
passages,  which  are,  in   my  opinion,  objec- 
tionable,   on  other    grounds,    besides    their 
being  foreign  to  the  present  topic  of  con- 
troversy. 

The  first  is  your  use  of  the  words  "Pa- 
pist and  Romanist."  We  learn  from  his- 
tory, that  the  ancient  Athenian  laws  speci- 
fied, neither  prohibition,  nor  penalty,  for  the 
crime  of  parricide  : — the  legislator  believing, 
that  the  commission  of  it  was  impossible. 
Influenced  by  a  similar  supposition,  it  never 
occurred   to  me,  in  fixing  the  laws  of  this 

D 


controversy,  to  stipulate  for  the  use  of  cour- 
teous language.     Your  official  standing,  the 
clerical  character,  and  the  courtesies  of  the 
a-e  in  which  we  live,  were pZedges,  in  my  mind, 
that  you  would  use  no  other.  1  had,  however, 
in  conversation,  informed  you,  that  the  appel- 
lation    by  which  we  choose  to  be  called,  is 
Catholics,  or  Roman  Catholics;— and   I  do 
not   perceive  what  good  feelings  are  to  be 
oratified  on  your  side,  by  preferring  to  either 
of  these,  an   epithet  known  to  be  offensive, 
and  which  adds  nothing,  either  to  sense  or 
argument.     Besides,  you  should,  in  my  opi- 
nion,   recollect,   that  for  nearly  a   hundred 
vears  past,  the  world  has  laughed  at  the  lu- 
dicrous   picture  of  Presbyterianism,   drawn 
by  the  Protestant  pencils  of  Dean  Swift  and 
the    author   of  Hudibras.     If  I    wished   to 
employ  unpalatable  epithets,  I  have  only  to 
consult  their  pages.     But  they  are  useless  to 
any  cause,  and  I  allude  to  the  matter,  mere- 
ly to  advise  the  reader,  that  I  shall  receive 
the  appellation  of  "  Papist,  Romanist,  &c," 
at  your  hand,  with  the  express  understand- 
in"-,  that  thev  are  nicknames. 

The  next*  passage,  which  I  consider  you 
to  have  treated  in  a  manner  unbecoming  the 
pen  of  a  clergyman,  as  well  as  the  impor- 
tance of  the  subject,  is  that  in  which  you 
allude  to  transubstantiation.  I  do  not 
mean  now  to  violate  the  order  of  proceeding, 
by  saying  one  word  in  proof  of  that  doctrine. 
It  is  a  doctrine,  however,  of  great  antiquity: 
admitted,  even  by  Protestant  writers,  to  be 
older,  by  many  hundred  years,  than  the  sect 
or  denomination  of  which  you  are  a  minister: 
it  is  a  doctrine,  sacred  with  the  vast  majority 
of  the  Christian  world  at  the  present  day, 
and  which  they  believe  to  be  as  old  as  Chris- 
tianitv  ; — and  I  submit  to  your  own  reflec- 
tion, "and  to  that  of  our  readers,  whether 
such  a  doctrine  was  not  entitled  to  a  more 
»rave  and  dignified  notice,  than  that  which 
you  have  been  pleased  to  take  of  it — in  tell- 
in"-  us  "that  a  priest  can  make  his  God, 
then  sacrifice  him,  then  give  him  to  the  people, 
then  worship  him,  and  then  eat  him."  There 
is  a  tripping  levity  of  phrase  in  this  passage, 
which  your  friends  will  regret  for  your  own 


18 


sake,  quite  as  much  as  I  can  do  for  any  other 
motive.  Be  assured,  Rev'd  Sir,  that  Catho- 
lics, however  incredible  it  may  appear, 
claim  the  possession  and  exercise  of  reason, 
no  less  than  Protestants.  If  we  are  in  dark- 
ness, you  may  charitably  undertake  to  en- 
lighten us;  but  it  must  be  by  something  more 
solid  and  permanent,  than  the  flash  of  abortive 
wit  and  ridicule,  with  which  you  have  thought 
proper  to  visit  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation.  Besides,  I  would  not  have  the  In- 
fidel, who  regards  Christianity,  as  you  do 
the  "real  presence,"  to  derive  any  acces- 
sion of  materials  to  his  stock  of  sarcasm, 
from  the  pages  of  this  controversy.  Volney 
has  an  argument  against  Christianity,  bear- 
ing so  near  a  resemblance  to  yours,  that  did 
we  not  _  know  the  difference  from  other 
sources,  it  would  be  difficult  to  say,  whether 
it  is  the  infidel,  that  has  imitated  the  Chris- 
tian, or  the  Christian,  that  has  borrowed 
from  the  infidel:— So  much  are  they  like 
children  of  the  same  family. 

Volney  is  exposing  the  absurdity  of  belief 
in  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation  and  Divinity 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Volney  was  an  infidel,  and 
we  are  not  surprised  to  see  him  indulging  a 
vein  of  humour.  "  You  make  your  God," 
says  he,  "  the  well-beloved  Son,  born  with- 
out a  mother;  and  then,  as  old  as  his  father; 
and  then  the  son  of  a  woman,  who  is  at  once 
a  virgin  and  a  mother,  and  then  you  have 
him  killed,  for  the  benefit  of  mankind."  I 
shall  pass  from  this  part  of  my  subject,  by  ask- 
ing you,  whether  Volney  has  not  been  quite 
as  witty,  pungent,  and  conclusive  against 
Christ's  Divinity,  as  you  have  been  against 
transubstantiation  ? 

The  proverb  says,  that  there  is  a  time  for 
all  things;  and  our  rules  of  controversy, 
lay  it  down,  as  most  conducive  to  order,  to 
treat  of  but  one  thing  at  one  time.  We  are 
now,  Rev'd  Sir,  discussing  the  "  Rule  of 
'Faith,''  and  "  the  parties  agree  respectively, 
to  adhere  strictly  to  the  subject  of  discussion 
for  the  time  being,  and  to  admit  no  second 
question,  until  the  first  shall  have  been  ex- 
hausted." With  the  recollection  of  this  rule 
fresh  on  my  memory,  judge  of  my  surprise 
at  beholding  the  host  of"  second  questions," 
which  you  have  contrived  to  marshal  into  the 
very  van  of  the  contest.  "The  Expurgatory 
Index," — "Pope  Liberius." — "The  Arian 
heresy. " — "The  Pope's  Supremacy." — "Seat 
of  infallibility." — "General  Councils.'' — 
Validity  of  oaths." — "Letters  from  Bononia 
by  three  Bishops," — "Traditions." — Apo- 
cryphal Books,"  &c. 


-Stiphelumque,  Bromumque 


Antimachumque,  HeJimumque,  Securiferumque 
Pyracmon. 

These  subjects  maybe  more  serviceable  in 
the  rear  as  a  body  of  reserve.  You  will  thus 
have  an  opportunity  of  reviewing,  and  pre- 
paring them  for  action,  when  their  turn  shall 
have  come.  There  is,  however,  one  topic, 
which  has  a  closer  affinity  to  the  subject  now 
under  consideration,  and  which  demands  a 
more  proximate  attention.  It  is  your  objec- 
tions to  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith.  Now,  the 
state  of  the  question,  as  laid  down  in  my 
first  letter,  required  of  you  not  to  attack  my 
rule,  by  anticipation,  but  to  defend  your 
own  ;  which,  by  the  laws  of  the  controversy 
I  was  authorized  to  investigate.  I  had 
placed  the  result  of  that  investigation  before 
the  public,  in  a  few  brief,  plain,  but  solid 
and  practical  arguments,  which,  I  was  well 
aware,  it  would  require  something  more  than 
the  female  theology  of  "Father  Clement," 
to  shake  from  their  foundations.  But,  be- 
fore I  proceed  to  review  your  attempt  at  a 
r^ply  to  them,  I  take  occasion  to  assure  you, 
that  at  a  proper  time,  I  shall  defend  the 
Catholic  rule  with  positive  arguments,  quite 
as  strong,  as  those  already  advanced  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Protestant  principle. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  reader  will  please 
to  bear  in  mind,  that  Protestants  profess  to 
be  guided  by  one  rule  of  faith,  and  that 
Catholics  not  only  profess  to  be,  but  are  in 
effect,  guided  by  another.  Now,  as  you  have 
agreed  with  me,  that  Christ  established  one, 
and  only  one,  rule  of  faith,  "  for  the  purpose 
of  guiding  us  in  matters  of  religion,  and 
determining  disputes  in  his  church," — it 
follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that 
either  the  Catholics  or  the  Protestants  have 
forsaken  that  true  rule,  and  put  themselves 
under  the  guidance  of  a  false  one,  which 
Christ  did  not  establish,  and  which  is  there- 
fore, inadequate  either  to  direct  us  in 
matters  of  religion  or  to  determine  our  dis- 
putes. Deeming  it  more  conducive  to  clear- 
ness and  perspicuity,  to  give  either  rule  a 
separate  trial,  I  began  by  arraigning  that 
principle,  which  has  been  adopted  by  Pro- 
testants. I  stated  that  the  "Bible  alone," 
as  each  individual  understands  it,  is  the  Pro- 
testant rule  of  faith,  and  you  have  not  dis- 
puted the  correctness  of  the  statement.  Now  if 
you  prove  that  this  rule  was  actually  establish- 
ed by  Christ — that  it  guides  those  who  have 
adopted  it  in  matters  of  religion — that  it  deter- 
mines their  disputes,  you  will  thereby  simpli- 
fy the  investigation,  and  your  friends  may 
congratulate  you  on  an  easy  triumph  when 


19 


you  come  to  examine  the  Catholic  branch  of 
the  inquiry.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  I 
prove  by  unanswerable  argument,  that  the 
Protestant  rule  fails  on  all  these  heads,  then 
it  will  follow,  by  the  very  tenor  of  our  agree- 
ment that  the  Catholic  rule  mud  be  the  true  rule 
appointed  by  Christ.  This  however,  I  pledge 
myself  to  prove  by  positive  arguments,  when 
the  question  shall  have  come  fairly  under 
discussion.  At  present,  it  is  the  duty  of  my 
position  to  urge  those  facts  and  arguments, 
which  overthrow  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith 
— of  yours,  to  answer  them.  I  wish  it  to  be 
clearly  understood,  that  I  will  not  go  aside 
from  the  question  now  under  consideration, 
to  answer  any  objection  even  against  the 
Catholic  rule  of  faith,  until  the  present  topic 
shall  have  been  entirely  disposed  of. 

The  first  sentence  that  arrests  my  atten- 
tion   in   the   foreground    of  your  reply,    is 
the    startling   declaration,  that    you    "own 
no  judge    of  controversies  but  God."     Do 
you   not,   Reverend  Sir,  perceive  how  flat- 
ly this  proposition   contradicts  the  admission 
of  every   rule  of   faith?     If  Christ   has  es- 
tablished a  rule  of  faith  to  "  determine  dis- 
putes,"— surely  you  will  "own"  that  rule  as 
a  judge  of  controversy— unless  you  can  disco- 
ver a  distinction  between  "judging  contro- 
versies" and  'determining  disputes^' — for  my 
part,  I  can  see  no  distinction    whatsoever. 
You  admit,  on  the  one  hand,  an  infallible  rule 
appointed  for  the  express  purpose  of  determin- 
ing disputes;  and,  on  the  other,  almost  in  the 
same  breath,  you  "disown"  every  judge  of 
controversy  but  God  !     Protestants  usually 
profess  to  acknowledge  the  word  of  God  as  the 
judge  of  controversy;  and,    as   each  minis- 
ter  possesses   the   right  and   the   talent   of 
making  the  word  of  God  decide  in  favour  of 
his    own   doctrine,  the    principle,    I    should 
think,  allows  ample  latitude  for  the.  irrespon- 
sible rovings  of  private  opinion.     But  for  you, 
it  seems,  that  even  the  word  of  God  is  too 
restrictive  ; — since  you  will  "own  no  judge  of 
controversies  but  God  himself."     It  is  true 
that  he  is  the  ultimate  judge  of  all  things,  but  to 
say  that  he  is  the  immediate  judge  of  contro- 
versy, by  whom  "disputes  in  the  Church  of 
Christ  are  to  be  determined;" — is  an  asser- 
tion that  will  be  found  novel  in  the  annals  of 
polemical  disputation. 

In  my  introduction,  speaking  in  reference 
to  private  interpretation,  I  quoted  the  words 
of  St.  Peter,  in  which  he  says  that  "  no  pro- 
phecy of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  inter- 
pretation," and  contrasted  them  with  the  prac- 
tice of  Protestants.who,  in  fact,  make  all  Scrip- 
ture and  prophecy  of  Scripture,  of  every  private 


interpretation.     By  this  remark,  I  intended 
simply  to  show,  that,  if  St.  Peter  meant  what 
his  language  so  obviously  expresses, he  at  least 
was  not  disposed  to  leave  the  Scripture,  or  the 
prophecy  of  Scripture,  subject  to  thearbitrary 
or  capricious  interpretation  of  each  private  in- 
dividual. But  it  seems  I  was  mistaken; — and 
you,  Reverend  Sir,  are  kind  enough  to  write 
nearly  a  whole  column  of  explanation,  to  in- 
struct me,  and  our  readers  generally,  how  we 
are  tounderstand  the  text.  That  you  felt  the  ne- 
cessity of  giving  this  explanation  is  a  timely 
hint,  that  either  the  Scripture  is  not,  after 
all,  so  plain  as  you  are  accustomed  on  other 
occasions  to  assert,  or  else  (what  amounts  to 
the  same)  that  we  are  not  competent  to  under- 
stand its  meaning.     But  unless  you  claim  for 
yourself,  either  mental  superiority,  or  some 
small  portion  of  that  infallibility  which  you 
deny  to  the  whole  church,  I  can  see  no  reason 
why    you  should  pretend  to  understand  the 
passa«  e  better  than  my sel  f,  or  than  any  of  our 
readers.     You  say  that  "  it  is  important  to  be 
noticed    by    me   that    it  is  the  prophecy  of 
Scripture,  and  not  the  Scripture  that  is  ob- 
scure."    Then,  you  admit  that  prophecy,  at 
least,  is  obscure.     This  is  indeed    a  conces- 
sion.    But  pray  is  not  "  prophecy"  a  part  of 
Scripture?  and  if  it  be,  then  we  have  your  own 
authority  for  believing  that  some  part  of  Scrip- 
ture is  obscure.  You  next  urge  that,  by  my  in- 
terpretation the  apostle  is  made  to  argue  thus, 
the  Scriptures  are  infallibly  revealed    or 


inspired,  and  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed  to 
them,  therefore  they  are  obscure,  too  obscure, 
for  private  explanation."  The  premises, 
dear  Sir,  are  St.  Peter's,  but  the  conclusion 
is  your  own.  "The  voice,  indeed,  is  the  voice 
of  Jacob,  but  the  hands  are  the  hands  of 
Esau."  I  would  find  a  better  conclusion  in 
the  apostle's  own  words,  "  therefore,  (as  no 
prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  any  private  inter- 
pretation) you  will  not  wrest  it,  as  some  do 
also  the  other  Scriptures,  to  yourown  destruc- 
tion." 2  Pet.  iii.  16."  I  am  not  disposed  to 
dwell  longer  on  this  subject,  but  I  must  re- 
mark, that,  to  my  mind,  your  explanation  of 
the  passage  appears  quite  as  obscure,  as  the 
text  itself. 

As  to  the  Latin  quotation  from  the  Vulgate, 
it  means  precisely  what  is  expressed  in  the 
text  as  quoted  above,  and  for  which,  I  assure 
you,  I  am  not  at  all  indebted  to  what  you  call 
"  our  English  translation." 

As  all  the  rest  of  your  introduction  con- 
sists of  premature  objections  against  a  rule  of 
faith,  which  is  not  yet  under  consideration, 
I  you  will  excuse  me,  if  I  pass  them  over,  with 
|  a   promise   to   refute   them   in  their  proper 


place.  When  we  come  to  the  Catholic  rule, 
I  shall  show  you,  how  \vc  /know  the  true 
church,  how  the  Scriptures  designate  her; 
how  we  solve  the  vicious  circle:  how  the 
trufc  church  is  distinguished  by  her  divine 
characteristics  from  all  would  be  churches; — 
and  a  great  many  other  things  with  which  it  is 
not  wonderful,  to  find  Protestants  rather  un- 
acquainted. At  present  you  are  called  upon 
to  vindicate  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith — and 
instead  of  defending  your  own  position,  you 
attack  ours.  It  seems  to  be  the  height  of 
your  ambition  to  show  that  the  Catholic  sys- 
tem involves  as  many  difficulties,  as  the  Pro- 
testant system:  but  even  if  you  succeeded, 
the  only  consequence  that  would  follow  is, 
that  neither  possesses  the  true  rule. — 

Now  for  the  arguments. — 

I.  My  first- argument  against  the  Protes- 
tant rule  of  faith  was,  that  Christ  never  ap- 
pointed it.  The  reasons  by  which  I  support- 
ed this  argument  were  simple  facts.  It  is  a 
fact,  that  the  Bible  alone,  interpreted  by  each 
individual  for  himself,  is  the  (nominal)  rule 
of  faith,  adopted  by  Protestants.  It  is  a  fact, 
that  Christ  never  appointed  this  rule; — be- 
cause he  never  wrote  any  part  of  the  Old  or 
New  Testament  himself;~he .never  command 
ed  any  part  to  be  written  by  his  apostles.  It  is 
a  fact,  that  what  constitutes  the  Bible  (accord- 
ing to  the  Protestant  canon  of  Stripture)  was 
not  complete,  until  the  close  of  the  first  cen- 
tury; and  consequently,  it  is  a  fact,  that  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith  did  not  exist  in  the 
first  century,  and  is  therefore  not  the  rule 
which  Christ  established:— I  call  upon  you  to 
deny  one  single  proposition  here  stated  as  a 
fact. 

To  supply  this  deficiency,  you  are  pleased 
to  assign  an  origin  to  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith,  which,  whilst  it  corresponds  with  these 
facts,  relinquishes  all  pretensions  tothatrule's 
having  been  established  by  Christ.  You  as- 
sert that  the  "  Old  Testament,"  with  the  in- 
structions of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  consti- 
tute the  rule  of  faith,  from  the  demise  of  the 
Synagogue,  until  just  before  the  death  of  the 
last  Apostle,  when  the  "  entire  New  Testa- 
ment was  written," — and  when,  as  you  sup- 
pose, the  Protestantrule  of  faith  went  into  ope- 
ration. Your  clerical  brethren  will,  no  doubt, 
admire  your  candor  in  admitting  that  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith,  so  far  from  having 
been  established  by  Christ,  had  not  so  much  as 
an  existence,  until  the  close  of  the  first  century ; 
and  the  Jews  will  feel  complimented,  by  the 
acknowledgment  that  the  "Old  Testament" 
was  placed  in  the  same  chair  of  authority  with 
Christ  and  his  Apostles,  for  the  purpose  of 


determining  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  du- 
ring the  same  period.  Either  admission,  is  a 
concession  of  my  argument,  that  the  Bible 
alone  is  not  the  rule  of  faith  established  by 
Christ. 

II.  My  second  argument  was,  that  "as 
Protestants  boast  of  believing  nothing  but 
what  is  contained  in  the  Bible,  they  are  bound 
to  show  some  text  of  Scripture,  to  prove  the 
Bible  alone  is  the  rule  of  faith  established  by 
Christ."  This  is  the  fundamental  principle 
of  Protestantism.  If  this  is  not  a  divinely 
revealed  tenet  of  religion,  then  it  follows,  that 
the  Protestant  rule  of  faith  is  precisely  what 
I  said  of  it,  in  my  former  letter,  a  mere  'as- 
sumptions—a thing  taken  for  granted,  without 
proof  or  examination.  It  is  easy  to  perceive 
in  your  answer,  that  you  were  not  insensible 
to  the  strength  of  this  position,  nor  to  the  fee- 
bleness of  its  opposite: — Hence,  instead  of  as- 
sailing it,  with  that  superiority  of  evidence 
which  Protestants  associate  with  their  belief, 
you  go  round  it,  asking  yourself  questions  and 
answering  them:  "  what  then,  you  say,  are  the 
Scriptures?"  Permit  me  again,  Rev.  Sir,  to 
give  the  answer.  They  are  the  written  word 
of  God.  Are  they  the  only  rule  of  faith?  they 
themselves,  from  the  beginning  of  Genesis  to 
the  end  of  Revelation  do  not  say  that  they  are. 
Why  then  do  Protestants  believe,  that  the 
Bible  alone  is  the  rule  of  faith,  when  the  Bible 
itself  does  not  say  so?  I  leave  you,  Rev. 
Sir,  to  answer  this  question. 

But  in  fact  your  language  indicates  an 
abandonment  of  the  undertaking.  You  say 
ingenuously,  that  the  "  presumption  from  the 
admitted  fact  of  the  Bible's  being  a  revela- 
tion is,  that  it  is  the  rule  of  faith."  Now  I  ask 
you,  can  that  be  the  rule  of  faith  appointed  by 
Christ,  which,  according  toyour  own  acknow- 
ledgment, rests  upon  a  mere  "presump- 
tion?" A  presumption  is  an  unequivocal  ba- 
sis for  the  Protestant's  belief  in  time,  and  his 
hope  in  eternity!! 

As  to  your  subdivisions  under  this  head,  they 
all  belong  to  another  part  ot  the  subject,  and 
certainly  do  not  prove,  that  the  Protestant  rule 
of  faith  is  authorized,  by  any  single  text  of 
the  sacred  writing.  It  is  true  you  attempt 
to  strengthen  the  "presumption"  by  a  text 
of  Scripture; — not  from  the  Gospel,  but  from 
the  Prophet  Isaiah  viii.  20.  "  To  the  law  and 
to  the  testimony,  if  they  speak  not  according 
to  them,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in 
them."  The  prophet  in  this  verse,  was  not 
pointing  out  a  rule  of  faith,  but  reminding 
the  people  that  it  was  forbidden  in  the  land, 
(Deut.  xviii.  10,)  to  consult  false  oracles6 
which  was  natural  enough.     But  to  infer  that 


21 


this  text  constitutes  a  divine  warrant  for  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith,  is  indulging  private 
interpretations,  with  a  vengeance.  The  next 
passage  that  is  brought  forward,  is  that  in 
which  St.  Paul  approves  Timothy,  (2  Tim. 
iii.  15.  \7)  for  his  knowledge  of  the  Scripture. 
You  first  quote  the  passage  entire — and  then, 
as  if  conscious  of  its  inconclusiveness  as  to 
the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  you  take  it  apart, 
and  weave,  from  the  fragments,  a  chain  of  rea- 
soning favourable  to  your  "  presumption,"  but 
in  which,  be  it  noted,  that  for  every  link  fur- 
nished by  the  Apostle;— two  are  added, of your 
own  fabrication.  Allow  me  to  quote  a  spe- 
cimen. "The  Scriptures  are  able  to  make 
wise  unto  salvation,"  says  the  text;  "  with- 
out any  human  judge  or  help,"  adds  Mr. 
Breckinridge.  But,  Sir,  if  this  addition  be 
true,  what  will  become  of  the  clergy,  who 
live  by  fudging  M  and  helping"  to  explain 
the  meaning  of  Scripture.  Will  they  not  say, 
in  the  words  of  another  text,  "  a  man's  ene- 
mies are  those  of  his  household."  But,  so  far 
as  the  Scripture  is  concerned,  it  is  manifest 
that  the  "  presumption,"  on  which  the  Pro- 
testant rule  of  faith  depends,  must  remain 
what  it  is. 

III.  My  third  argument  was, — that  the  Bi- 
ble alone,  is  a  misnomer  in  Theology, — in  as 
much,  as  we  can  know  nothing  of  it  except 
through  the  medium  of  interpretation.  And, 
as  this  medium  is,  in  all  cases,  confessedly 
fallible,  according  to  your  rule  of  faith,  it  fol- 
lows necessarily,  that  no  Protestant  can  be 
certain,  whether  the  doctrines  which  he  be- 
lieves, and  on  which  he  grounds  his  hope  of 
salvation,  are  contained  in  the  Bible.  Be  as- 
sured, Rev.  Sir,  that  our  readers  will  find 
something  more  "  profound" in  this  argument 
than  you  have  seen  fit  to  acknowledge.  You 
say  "  my  God,  my  Bible,  and  my  mind  are 
supposed  in  myr\x\e  of  faith:"  precisely, — and 
for  that  reason  it  is,  that  the  opinions  and  pre- 
judices of  your  "  mind,"  receive  a  fallacious 
authority  with  the  people,  by  being  put  forth 
and  accepted,  as  emanating  from  the  pure 
word  of  God,  the  Bible  alone/  Has  not  the 
Episcopalian,  the  Baptist,  the  Methodist,  the 
Moravian,  the  Swedenborgian,  the  Unitarian, 
the  Arminian,  and  the  Universalist,  each  "  his 
God,  his  Bible,  and  his  mind?" — and  will  you 
for  a  moment,  pretend  to  say  that  they  are 
guided  by  the  rule  of  faith  which  you  and 
they  equally  profess  to  follow,  the  Bible 
alone?  It  is  not  the  Bible  alone;— but  the  Bi- 
ble, twisted  into  harmony  with  the  Confession 
of  Faith, — viewed  through  the  Westminster 
Telescope, — which  constitutes  your  rule  of 
faith.   As  to  the  silly  argument  which  you  are 


pleased  to  ascribe  to  me,  under  this  head,  I 
must  beg  leave  to  disown  it.  It  is  the  child  of 
Presbyterian  "logic,"  and  is  quite  too  young 
to  sustain  my  "  claim  to  infallibility." 

IV.  My  fourth  argument  was,  that  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith  actually  undermines 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  by  extin- 
guishing the  proofs  of  their  authenticity  and 
inspiration,  and  consequently  terminates,  in 
moral  suicide.  Just  imagine  to  yourself  an 
ordinary  will  or  testament,  written  but 
twenty  years  ago; — purporting  to  be  the 
last  will  and  testament  of  a  wealthy  de- 
ceased relative,  and  designating  you  as 
heir,  but  without  either  signature  or  pro- 
bate;— and  ask  yourself  what  it  would  be 
worth?  Could  such  a  document  establish  its 
own  authenticity  ?  And  yet,  this  is  precisely 
the  situation  to  which  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith  reduces  the  Scriptures,  in  rejecting  the 
collateral  testimony  of  the  church,  by  which, 
and  by  which  alone,  their  authenticity  could 
have  been  established.  St.  Augustine,  of 
whom  Presbyterians  are  sometimes  wont  to 
speak  with  respect,  declared  that  it  was  the 
testimony  of  the  church  which  moved  him  to 
believe  in  the  Scriptures.  But  noiv,  the  or- 
der of  belief  is  "reformed."  Men  pick  up 
(pardon  the  phrase)  the  sacred  volume,  as 
they  find  it,  floating  on  the  sea  of  two  thou- 
sand years,  and  by  one  great,  but  gratui- 
tous, act  of  belief,  which  flings  all  inter- 
mediate church  authority  and  tradition  to 
the  winds,  they  say  "the  Bible  is  the  Bible, 
and  we  are  its  interpreters,"  every  man  for 
himself. 

Is  it  not  a  fact,  Rev'd  Sir,  that  Protestant- 
ism rejects  tradition  and  adopts  the  Bible 
alone  as  its  rule  of  faith?  and  if  so,  what 
other  testimony  is  left  in  the  universe  to  es- 
tablish either  the  authenticity  or  inspiration 
of  the  Bible?  When  you  say,  therefore,  that 
my  latent  meaning  in  all  this  argument  is,  that 
we  "need  the  church  to  tell  us  what  is 
Bible  and  what  is  not,"  you  express  my 
meaning  exactly,  and  it  is  "latent"  no  longer. 
It  is  now  incumbent  on  you  to  show  how  a 
Protestant,  by  the  Bible  alone,  can  be  as- 
sured that  the  Scriptures  are  authentic  and 
inspired. 

V.  My  fifth  argument  was,  that  Christ 
neither  established  nor  intended  the  Bible 
alone  to  be  the  rule  of  faith,  because  it  was 
not  universally  known  until  the  end  of 
the  fifth  century,  what  books,  were  to  be 
regarded  as  inspired  Scripture.  The  argu- 
ment which  you  here  raise  against  the 
church,  for  not  making  known  what  books 
were   Scripture,    until    the   period    referred 


22 


to,  I  shall  answer  in  its  proper  place.  In 
the  mean  time,  the  fact  is  an  everlasting  proof, 
that  the  Bible  alone  was  not  the  primitive  rule 
of  Christian  faith.  You  have  given  authority 
indeed,  to  prove  that  some  of  the  books  of 
Scripture  were  certain;  this  I  never  denied; 
but  you  have  admitted,  that  even  as  late  as  the 
Council  of  Laodicea,  364,  some  were  doubt- 
ful, and  this  is  quite  sufficient  for  my  argu- 
ment. These  some  prove  that  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faitli  was  not  complete,  even  "at  the 
death  of  the  last  apostle,"  nor  for  264  years 
afterwards,  and  consequently  was  not  estab- 
lished by  Christ:  therefore,  it  is  a  false  rule. 
But  besides,  the  condition  of  the  world 
at  that  period,  renders  it  absurd  to  suppose 
that  the  Bible  alone  was  even  thought  of  as 
the  rule  of  faith,  1st; — because  of  the  multi- 
tude of  languages  into  which  it  would  have 
been  necessary  to  translate  the  Bible:  2d,  be- 
cause of  the  multitude  of  pens  necessary  to 
transcribe  copies,  so  as  to  furnish  believers 
with  a  rule  of  faith:  3d,  because  of  the  multi- 
tude of  schools  and  scholmasters  necessary 
to  teach  the  people  of  every  nation  how  to 
read.  And  this  is  the  argument  which  you 
call  a  "quibble!" 

VI.  My  sixth  argument  was,  that  as  the 
true  rule  of  faith  was  established  "to  determine 
disputes  in  the  church  of  Christ,v  it  cannot  be 
the  Protestant  rule,  because,  it  is  a  fact. 
that,  since  the  beginning  of  Christianity  un- 
til the  present  hour,  no  dispute  has  ever  been 
determined  by  that  rule,  the  Bible  alone. 
Are  you  then  still  prepared  to  say,  that  a  rule 
which,  in  no  single  instance,  has  accomplish- 
ed the  end  of  its  institution,  is  the  rule  ap- 
pointed by  Christ?  Does  the  Bible  "  deter- 
mine the  dispute"  between  you  and  the 
Episcopalians  on  the  institution  of  bishops — 
between  you  and  the  learned  editor  of  the 
Christian  Index,  on  the  subject  of  Infant 
Baptism — between  you  and  the  Unitarian  on 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ — between  you 
and  your  Rev.  Brethren  of  the  Second  Pres- 
bytery in  your  own  church? 

VII.  My  seventh  argument  was,  that  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith  so  far  from  "  deter- 
mining any  dispute,''  has  given  rise  to  all  the 
heresies  that  exist.  By  that  rule  the  Bible 
is  made  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ  in 
one  pulpit,  and  to  overthrow  the  belief  of  it 
in  another;— to  prove  the  eternity  of  torments, 
and  the  non-existence  of  Hell: — And  can 
that  be  the  rule  appointed  by  Christ,  which 
gives  the  same  warrant  of  authority  to  him 
that  "  plants,  and  to  him  that  plucks  up  that 
which  had  been  planted?"  Is  there  a  more 
palpable   proof  of  this  argument,    than  the 


multitude  of  sects  and  the  endless  contradict 
tions  among  Protestants,  on  subjects  of  doc- 
trine? After  stating  this  argument,  you  turn 
round  and  exclaim  "Poor  Bible,  what  a 
transgressor  thou  hast  been !"  and  then 
avenge  yourself  on  my  reasoning,  by  saying 
that  "our  rule  has  worked  worse  than  yours." 
That  is  not  now  the  question.  Neither  do  I 
charge  the  "transgression"  on  the  Bible,  as 
you  insinuate.  God  forbid!  But  I  assert 
boldly,  that  it  is  not  the  abuse,  but  the  use  of 
the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  which  has  pro- 
duced all  the  sects  that  claim  to  be  guided 
by  it.  It  is  indeed  the  abuse  of  the  Bible; — 
but  the  regular  use  of  the  rule. 

VIII.  My  eighth  argument  was,  that  the 
Socinian  has  the  same  persuasion  of  being 
right  in  his  belief,  that  you  have  in  yours. 
And  consequently  that  you  are  both  under 
the  guidance  of  a  principle,  which  can  im- 
part certainty  to  neither.  But  you  yourself 
have  admitted  that  the  true  rule  of  faith, 
"must  give  to  those,  who  abide  by  its  decisions 
an  infallible  certainty :"  and  therefore,  teju- 
dice,  your  rule  is  not  the  true  one:  since  un- 
der its  operation,  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ, 
agitated  between  you  and  the  Socinian,  be- 
comes a  doubtful  tenet,  on  which  each  of 
you  may  entertain  or  express  his  opinions,  but 
nothing  more.  You  have  not  even  attempted 
to  wrestle  with  this  argument. 

As  to  the  assertion  that  "Joanna  South- 
cote  and  the  Shakers,  use  our  rule  of  faith;" 
it  is  a  piece  of  information,  with  which,  I  be- 
lieve history  was  altogether  unacquainted  be- 
fore. I  deny  the  fact,  however;  and  I  should 
be  sorry  to  see  my  "  logic  hanging"  on  any 
such  admission. 

IX.  My  ninth  argument  was,  as  you  say, 
a  practical  illustration  of  the  above.  In  or- 
der to  make  it  clear,  I  supposed  by  (hypothe- 
sis,) that  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  was  the 
true  doctrine  of  the'Bible.  I  supposed  four 
clergymen  of  that  denomination,  no  matter 
who,  in  searching  the  Scriptures,  to  become 
persuaded  that  Unitarianism,  Univeralism, 
Swedenborgianism,  or  Catholicity  is  the  reli- 
gion of  the  Bible.  I  asked  you  whether,  in  that 
case,  they  would  not  be  bound  before  God,  to 
quit  the  true  religion  of  Christ,  represented 
by  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  embrace  the 
heresies; — and  whether,  in  doing  this,  they 
would  not  act  in  strict  conformity  with  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith  ?  I  say  they  would: 
and  I  submit  to  your  own  reason,  and  that  of 
our  readers,  whether  a  rule,  which  would  thus 
drive  men  from  the  true  faith,  and  compel 
them  to  embrace  heresy,  is  likely  to  be  that 
infallible  rule,  "which   Jesus  Christ  estab- 


23 


lished  to  guide  us  in  matter  of  religion,  and 
to  determine  disputes  in  his  church."  Gene- 
brard's  ''Chronicles"  will  not,  I  assure  you, 
furnish  you  a  solution  of  the  difficulty. 

X.  My  tenth  argument  was,  that  the  doc- 
trines of  Christ  were  delivered  to  mankind  as 
positive  truths,  facts,  about  which  there 
could  be  no  grounds  for  disputation.  That  the 
object  for  which  an  infallible,  rule  of  faith  was 
established,  was  to  guard  those  eternal  and 
unchangeable  truths  of  God,  from  being  lost, 
or  confounded  with  the  opinions  of  men. 
From  this  I  argued,  that  the  Protestant  rule 
of  faith  is  not  the  rule  which  Christ  ap- 
pointed : — Because  every  doctrine  which  is 
tried  by  the  Protestant  rule,  is  changed  by 
the  very  test,  from  a  fact  or  positive  truth,  into 
a  mere  opinion.  What  is  it  that  has  so  multi- 
plied creeds  among  Protestants?  What  is  it 
that  has  never  ceased  to  evolve  one  sect  out  of 
another  from  the  days  of  the  "  Reformation," 
so  called?  It  is  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith. 
Why  is  it  that  Protestants  are  in  everlasting 
controversies  among  themselves?  It  is  be- 
cause their  rule  of  faith  has  robbed  them,  all 
alike,  of  certainty,  as  to  the  truth  of  their  res- 
pective doctrines.  What  is  the  character  of 
their  warfare  ?  It  is  the  battle  of  opinions, 
about  the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  in  which  the 
privilege  of  private  interpretation  furnishes 
the  Unitarian  and  the  Universalist,  with  the 
same  weapons,  which  it  bestows  upon  the 
Presbyterian  and  Baptist.  Now  Sir,  I  again 
assert,  that  Christ  never  inculcated  the  be- 
lief of  an  opinion/  I  assert,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  human  mind,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  never 
has  held,  and  never  can  hold,  one  single 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  except  by  the  du- 
bious tenure  of  opinion — and  1  challenge  you 
to  disprove  either  of  these  assertions. 

You  say  you  have  refuted  this  argument 
in  your  introduction,  but  I  appeal  even  to  our 
Protestant  readers,  whether,  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end  of  your  letter,  they  will  not 
look  in  vain,  for  a  refutation.  You  have  indeed, 
attempted  to  show  that  Catholics  are  equally 
destitute  ot  certainty,  but  when  we  come  to 
speak  of  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  I  shall 
show  how  easy  it  is  to  prove  the  contrary. 

As  the  rest  of  your  letter  is  "about  every 
"  you  cannot  expect  me  to  notice  it,  since 


thins 


we  are  both  equally  forbidden  by  our  rules,  to 
travel  out  of  the  subject  "under  discussion  for 
the  time  being."  This  is,  perhaps,  a  circum- 
stance which,  on  the  whole,  you  ought  not  to 
regret?  as  it  will  give  you  an  opportunity  of 
reviewing  your  authorities.  Remember  that 
Archbishop  Usher  was  a  Protestant,  and  yet 


you  once  quoted  him  to  prove  that  Catholics 
are  idolaters: — and,  added,  addressing  the 
young  lady  in  Baltimore,  "of  Usher's  au- 
thority among  Romanists  we  need  not  speak." 
However,  you  have  since  explained  it,  as  some 
strange  mistake  of  printing.  It  was  indeed 
very  strange;  and  such  mistakes  ought  to  be 
guarded  against  in  future,  for  your  authorities, 
as  well  as  arguments,  are,  henceforward, to  be 
under  the  inspection  of  many  a  scrutinizing 
eye.  But  for  the  present,  I  shall  not  pluck  out 
a  single  gem  of  authority,  nor  controvert  a  sin- 
gle proposition  in  the  multifarious  matter  of 
your  epistle.  When  the  time  shall  have  come, 
however,  J  bind  myself  to  prove  that  several 
of  the  former  are  spurious,  and  several  of  the 
latter,  false. 

The  actual  question  now  under  considera- 
tion is,  The  Protestant  rule  of  faith.  It 
cries  out  for  a  defender — for  one,  who  will 
prove  it  to  be  "Infallible;  established  by 
Christ;  competent  to  guide  us  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion; and  to  determine  disputes  in  his 
Church."  It  demands  to  be  vindicated  by  its 
own  evidences,  which  cannot  be  wanting,  if 
it  was  established  by  Christ — and  it  scorns 
to  triumph  by  the  harad,  which,  instead  of 
protecting  it  with  the  shield  of  its  own  evi- 
dences, strikes  at  a  defenceless  rival.  Think 
you,  Reverend  Sir,  that  I  accepted  this  con- 
troversy, for  the  pleasure  of  playing  a  mere 
polemical  chess-game  with  him,  who  offered 
it?  God  forbid  !  I  accepted  it  with  a  view  to 
drive  the  ploughshare  of  reason,  evidence, 
and  argument,  through  the  radical  delusion, 
the  "origo  malorum,"  of  Protestantism.  I 
reflected  that  possibly,  in  the  inscrutable 
providence  of  God,  the  salvation  of  souls 
might  depend  on  this  controversy — and  look- 
ing, I  trust,  with  some  portion  of  the  charity 
of  Christ,  at  the  wanderings  of  my  Protestant 
brethren,  I  determined  to  expose  the  funda- 
mental delusion,  by  which,  since  the  unhappy 
separation,  they  have  followed  their  clergy, 
their  parents,  their  prejudices; — whilst  all 
three,  perhaps,  conspired  to  persuade  them 
into  the  erroneous  supposition,  that  they  were 
following  forsooth,  the  "pure"  word  of  God, 
the  "Bible  alone." 

Now,  sir,  I  again  request  you  to  "  adhere 
strictly  to  the  subject  of  discussion  for  the  time 
being,"  as  we  have  agreed  in  our  rules; — to 
prove,  if  you  can,  the  "  Protestant  rule  of 
faith,"  and,  by  close,  positive,  and  pertinent 
arguments,  to  overthrow,  article  for  article, 
those  which  have  been  laid  down  against  it, 
whilst  I  remain, 

Very  respectfully,  &c.  &c. 

Jno.  Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY.... ..N°.   4. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


New  York,  18th  February,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — It  would  appear  from  your  exulta- 
tion at  the  delay  of  my  reply,  that  you  were 
writing  against  time.  I  assure  you  that  the 
force  of  your  reasoning  did  not  occasion  that 
delay;  as  I  think  my  answer  sufficiently 
evinces.  "When  you  gravely  attempt  to  turn 
such  an  event  to  your  own  advantage,  it  must 
convince  the  public  of  the  weakness  of  your 
cause;  and  it  will  more  fully  explain  to  you 
the  reason  and  propriety  of  my  bringing  so 
distinctly  to  view,  in  our  preliminary  corres- 
pondence, the  nature  of  my  occupation.  If 
I  had  been  in  Philadelphia,  at  the  press,  my 
reply  would  have  appeared  in  its  proper  or- 
der as  to  time.  As,  however,  you  seem  to 
intimate  that  there  is  merit  in  despatch,  let 
me  inform  you  that  I  have  to  day,  [the  18th 
February,]  received  your  letter,  No.  3;  and 
that  the  time  allowed  me  for  reply,  extends 
only  to  Thursday  the  21st,  when  the  manu- 
script must  be  mailed,  in  order  to  be  in  sea- 
son for  the  next  paper. 

In  regard  to  the  terms  "  Papist  and  Ro- 
manist," which  you  call  "  nicknames,"  it  is 
proper  here  to  remark,  that  truth  requires 
their  use.  You  assume  the  rank  and  name 
of  "Catholic,"  that  is,  "the  universal 
Church,"  and  all  who  are  not  in  communion 
with  you  are  heretics,  doomed  to  perdition 
by  your  anathema,  now  in  full  force,  unless 
they  repent  and  return.  You  beg  the  ques- 
tion, therefore,  which  is  now  in  discussion,  by 
the  very  name.  Roman  Catholic,  in  strict 
speech  is  an  absurdity,  being  equivalent  to 
"particular  universal."  Protestants,  as 
members  of  the  universal  Church,  claim  to 
be  catholic;  and  it  is  as  proper  to  call  you 
"Papists,"  as  us  "Protestants."  The  one 
name  defines  those  who  hold  to  the  supre- 
macy of  the  Pope;  the  other  those  who  pro- 
test against  that  system.  If  you  are  Roman- 
Catholics,  we  are  Protestant-Catholics.  I 
regard  names  then  as  signs  of  things;  and 
use  them  for  truth,  not  reproach.  I  shall  feel 
no  pang  if  you)call  me  heretic,  "for  after  the 
way  you  call  heresy,  so  worship  I  the  God 
of  my  fathers;"  and  with  this  explanation,  I 

E 


will  hereafter  endeavour  to  oblige  you  in  the 
use  of  names. 

What  you  say  of  Volney  is  not  eve-nan  illus- 
tration, much  less  an  argument;  for  it  is  not 
true  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Saviour's  divini- 
ty contradicts  our  senses,  or  that  He  was  in 
any  way  made,  or  his  divinity  destroyed  by 
man;  all  of  which  are  true,  if  transubstantia- 
tion  be  true.  The  ribaldry  of  Volney  is  one 
thing,  and  the  exposure  of  bad  theology  is 
another.  I  meant  no  reproaches  in  what  I 
said.  But  it  seems  impossible  to  define  this 
doctrine  without  offending  those  who  hold  it. 
Perhaps  you  are  not  aware  that  John  Huss 
wrote  against  the  following  sentiment  of  a 
Bohemian  Priest:  "that  a  Priest  before  he 
says  Mass  is  the  Son  of  God,  but  afterward 
he  is  the  father  of  God,  and  the  creator  of 
his  bodv-''  I  charge  nothing  evil  to  the  in- 
tentions of  those  who  hold  this  doctrine;  I 
only  show  its  inconsistencies  and  its  tenden- 
cies. 

But  to  proceed — The  candid  reader  must 
be  forcibly  struck  with  the  peculiar  manner 
in  which  you  pass  by  every  argument  brought 
by  me,  against  your  rule  of  faith.  Thus  you. 
say,  "We  are  discussing  the  rule  of  faith;  and 
the  parties  agree  to  adhere  strictly  to  the  sub- 
ject of  discussion  for  the  time  being,  and  to  ad- 
mit of  no  second  question  until  the  first  shall 
have  been  exhausted."  And  again  you  say, 
"Now  the  state  of  the  question,  as  laid  down 
in  my  first  letter,  required  you  not  to  attack 
my  rule  by  anticipation,  but  to  defend  your 
own."  This  indeed  is  strange  reasoning. 
Is  not  the  whole  subject  of  the  rule  of  faith 
before  us  ?  And  does  it  lose  its  oneness,  by 
applying  the  principles  of  right  reasoning  to 
your  rule,  while  I  answer  your  objections  to 
mine?  But  the  following  paragraph  ex- 
plains your  design  in  this  course.  "  If  I 
prove  by  unanswerable  argument,  that  the 
Protestant  rule  fails,  in  all  these  heads,  then 
it  will  follow,  by  the  very  tenor  of  our  agree- 
ment, that  the  Catholic  rule  must  be  the 
true  rule  appointed  by  Christ."  This  is 
saying,  in  other  words,  that  your  Church  is 
the  residuary  legatee  of  truth.  If  the  Sa- 
maritans are  wrong,  then  must  the  Jews  be 


Sfl 


right?  It  is  like  the  claim  once  set  up  by  a 
wily  shepherd.  All  the  flocks  of  the  surround- 
ing fields  met  at  the  brook  on  a  summer's 
evening.  The  lambs  were  tender,  and  were 
not  yet  marked  with  the  several  shepherds' 
marks.  When  the  flocks  were  separated,  he 
claimed  all  the  lambs.  The  others  expostu- 
lated, one  saving  this  is  mine,  and  another, 
this  is  mine.  But  he  replied,  "each  of  you 
have  a  mark  for  your  sheep;  these  lambs  have 
no  mark  upon  them,  and  cannot  be  yours; 
therefore,  they  are  mine."  In  the  spirit  of 
this  extraordinary  plan  of  argument,  you  con- 
tinue in  this,  as  in  your  former  letter,  to  keep 
your  own  rule  wholly  out  of  view;  and  you  de- 
cline, in  so  many  words,  to  answer  my  many 
objections  to  it.  By  this  expressive  silence, 
you  for  the  present  at  least,  give  up  your  rule 
as  indefensible.  While  you  thus  pass  by  all 
discussion  of  it,  the  inference  is  irresistible, 
that  your  hope  of  success  rests  upon  the  plan, 
of  keeping  out  of  view  the  defects  of  your 
system;  and  in  seeking  to  perplex  the  gene- 
ral question  before  the  public  mind,  by  scho- 
lastic subtilties,  when  the  subject  calls  for 
manly  argument. 

In  view  of  these  things,  I  feel  myself  called 
on  to  pursue,  in  the  first  place,  the  line  of  dis- 
cussion with  which  I  closed  my  former  letter. 
This  course  is  on  every  account  demanded  ; 
for  your  letter  of  the  14th  inst.  is  only  a  sec- 
ond edition,  head  for  head,  of  that  already 
answered  by  me. 

I.  I  have  shown  that  your  rule  is  not  in- 
fallible. I  will  now  prove  that  it  is  the  pa- 
rent of  UNCERTAINTY. 

1.  The  authorised  version  of  the  Bible  is  in 
Latin,  as  well  as  the  prayers,  &c.  of  the 
church  service.  The  Vulgate,  with  all  its  er- 
rors, was  adopted  by  the  Council  of  Trent  as 
authentic  and  correct ;  yet  a  corrected  edition 
was  ordered  by  the  same  council,  and  it  was 
printed  under  the  care  of  the  Pope,  and  pub- 
lished with  his  Bull,  prohibiting  any  altera- 
tion in  it.  But  so  many  errors  were  de- 
tected in  it,  that  the  edition  was  suppressed! 
These  are  statements  you  will  hardly  deny. 
2.  The  ponderous  acts,  decisions,  &c.  of  the 
infallible  church  are  deposited  in  the  follow- 
ing works,  and  in  an  unknown  tongue. 
Archbishop  Manse's  Councils,  31  vols,  folio ; 
Great  Book  of  Bulls,  8  vols,  folio;  Acta 
Sanctorum,  51  vols,  folio;  Decretals,  about 
10  vols,  folio;  total  100  folio  volumes,  and 
then  35  folio  volumes  of  the  Fathers,  whose 
unanimous  consent  is  a  part  of  the  testimony. 
These  are  the  fountain,  but  who  of  the  people 
can  get  at  it?  What  is  drawn  thence,  is 
transfused  through  the  fallible  and  uncertain 


minds  of  innumerable  priests,  before  it  reach- 
es the  people.  Yet  these  are  the  helps  to  un- 
derstand the  Bible!  3.  The  Church  of  Rome 
is  utterly  silent  about  many  doctrines  ;  as 
whether  the  Virgin  Mary  was  born  sinless. 
There  have  been  fierce  contests  about  it  in 
your  communion.  But  the  oracle  is  dumb. 
Every  Protestant  child  can  decide  this  ques- 
tion. As  to  the  very  seat  of  the  boasted  in- 
fallibility, she  was  silent  at  Trent,  and  is 
now  divided  and  ^uncertain  ;  and  so  of  some 
other  doctrines.  4.  According  to  the  doc- 
trine of  intention,  [see  Council  of  Trent, 
Sess.  7.  Canon  ll.j  the  efficacy  of  the  sacra- 
ments depends  on  the  intention  of  the  officiat- 
ing minister;  some  of  these  sacraments,  of 
which  you  make  seven,  are  necessary  in  order 
to  salvation,  and  all  of  them  necessary  in 
their  places,  to  certain  states  in  life.  Thus 
marriage  is  not  valid,  if  performed  without 
the  intention  of  the  priest.  Baptism  and 
penance  are  not  valid  without  his  intention  ; 
and  on  these  depend  salvation.  But  who 
can  be  certain  of  the  intention  of  the  Priest  ? 
If  the  Bishop  who  ordained  that  Priest  lack- 
ed intention  in  the  act,  then  the  ordination  is 
invalid,  and,  of  course,  all  that  priest's  acts 
are  invalid.  But  who  can  be  certain  that  in 
this  chain  of  ages  some  link  is  not  wanting? 
Who  then  can  be  certain  of  salvation  in  the 
Romish  Church?  Yet  the  Duke  of  Brunswick 
assigning  his  fifty  reasons  for  becoming  a 
Roman  Catholic,  says,  "The  Catholics,  to 
whom  I  spoke  concerning  my  conversion,  as- 
sured me  that  if  I  were  damned  for  embrac- 
ing the  Catholic  Faith,  they  were  ready  to 
answer  for  me  at  the  day  of  judgment,  and  to 
take  my  damnation  upon  themselves;  an  as- 
surance I  could  never  extort  from  the  minis- 
ters of  any  other  sect,  in  case  I  should  live 
and  die  in  their  religion."  While  such  dar- 
ing impiety  discovers  the  absence  of  all  right 
feeling,  it  also  evinces  a  desperation  peculiar 
to  a  cause,  which  needs  propping  at  any  price. 
Now  if  these  statements  be  put  together,  they 
will  show  that  your  system  is  shrouded  in  un- 
certainty. But  you  contend  in  the  first  and 
second  editions  of  your  10th  head,  "that  a 
rule  which  is  the  parent  of  uncertainty,  can- 
not be  that  infallible  rule  established  by 
Christ,  to  guide  us  in  matters  of  religion." 

II.  The  unwarrantable  liberties  of  your 
church  with  the  word  of  God,  show  her  falli- 
ble to  a  deplorable  degree.  1st.  We  have 
seen  on  a  former  occasion  the  liberty  taken 
by  your  church  in  adding  to  the  word  of  God 
the  Apocryphal  books  and  unwritten  tradi- 
tions. 2d.  We  see  how  she  takes  away  from 
the  Bible  by  her  treatmerit  of  the  Decalogue. 


27 


The  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  re- 
peats  only  four   words  of  the  second  com- 
mandment, and  closes  with  an  expressive  el 
extern.      A  strange  way  to  give  a  divine  law, 
especially  to  a  people,  who  are  deprived  by 
the  church  of  the  word  of  G«d!     The  version 
used  in  the  Highlands  of  Scotland  (by  author- 
ity)  mutilates  it  almost   in  the  same  way. 
The  version  used  in  Ireland   entirely  omits 
the   second    commandment!      The   Doway 
Catechism   is   wiser,   as  it  was  to  circulate 
where  the  omission  would  not  be  borne;  but 
it  plainly  perverts  the  commandment  "  thou 
shatt  not  adore  nor  worship  images,"  where- 
as the  true  translation  is, "  thou  shalt  not  bow- 
down  thyself  to  them,  nor  serve  them."     The 
reason  for  the  change  is  very  plain.     3d.  The 
evidence  adduced  in  proof  of  the  sacrament  of 
extreme  unction  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  is  no 
less  than  a  literary,  or,  if  you  please,  a  pious 
fraud;  and  I  am  prepared  to  prove  it.     The 
Rhenish  and  Bordeaux  translations  have  been 
signalized    by  their    numerous  and    glaring 
frauds.    -4th.   Your  church  has  added  to  the 
word  of  God  newarticlesof  faith, and  even  new 
sacraments  to  the  institutions  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Leo  X.  condemned  Luther  for  saying,  it  is 
not  in  the  power  of  the  church  or  the  Pope 
to  constitute  new  articles  of  faith.     Divers 
writers,  as  the  Abbot  of  Panormo,  Ancona, 
&c,  contend  that  the  Pope   is  the   measure 
and  rule  of  faith,  and  can  make  new  articles. 
The  Bull  of  Pius  IV.   appended  to  the  de- 
crees of  the  Council  of  Trent,  makes  a  new 
creed — including  many  new  articles  of  faith, 
to  be  sworn  to  by  all  ecclesiastics;  and  all 
are  cursed  who  reject  them.     Among  these 
innovations,   brought  in  at  different  times, 
was  transubstantiation,   as  young  as  A.  D. 
1215 — Purgatory— depriving  the  people    of 
the  cup  in  the  Eucharist — Indulgences — the 
worship  of   images — prayer  in  an  unknown 
tongue.     It  is  of  this  that  some  one  has  re- 
marked, that  your  faith,  like  the  new  moon,  is 
crescent,  with  this  difference,   however,  (let 
me  add,)  that  it  is  not,  like  hers,  the  growth 
of  light.     Bellarminewe  suppose  means  this 
when  he  says  of  one  article,  '•'•fere  de  fide" 
(de  concil.  auth.  1.  2.  c.  17.  s.  1.)  "  almost  a 
matter  of  faith;"  a  probationer  for  a  seat  in 
the   creed!     If   this   be  not  "teaching   for 
doctrines   the   commandments  of  men,  and 
making  void  the  law  of  God  by  your  tradi- 
tions,"  I    know   not    what    is.     How    true 
it  is  that  "  Borne  was  not  built  in  a  day.'' 
Here  then  your  church  both  innovates  upon  the 
doctrine,  and  usurps  the  rights  of  God  ;  and 
by  this,  she  proves  herself  both  fallible  and 
guilty  before  God. 


III.   Your  rule,  if  observed,  requires  im- 
plicit faith  in  the  decretals  and  interpretations 
of  fallible  men,  which  is  subversive  of  the  very 
nature  and  end  of  religion  in  the  soul.    Faith 
supposes  knowledge,  conviction  on  evidence, 
and  trust  in  God,  founded  on  a  belief  of  di- 
vine truth.     But  your  rule  requires  uncon- 
ditional submission  to  the  dicta  of  the  church, 
in   the  lump.      The    "  Carbonaria  fides," 
or  faith  of  the  collier,  is  the  very   faith  re- 
quired.    It  is   as   follows:      "When   asked, 
"What  do  you   believe?  He  answered,  "I 
believe  what  the  church  believes."     "What 
does  the  church  believe?"  Answer — "  What 
/believe."  "Then  what  do  you  and  the  church 
together  believe?"     Ans.   "  We  both  believe 
the  same  thing."     This  is  the  grand  Catho- 
licon  for  believing  every  thing  without  know- 
ing any  thing.     In  this  soil  grew  the  maxim 
that  "  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  devotion." 
It  is  believing  by  proxy,  or  rather  not  believ- 
ing at  all,  in  the  true  sense.     Here  is  the  se- 
cret of  the  u  nity  of  your  church.     That  this  is 
not  my  bare  assertion  may  be  seen  in  the  creed 
of  Pope  Pius  IV.  when  it  is  said,  "I  admit 
the  Holy   Scripture  according  to  the   sense 
which  the  Holy  mother  Church,  (whose  right 
it  is  to  judge  of  the  true  meaning  and  inter- 
pretation of  the  sacred  Scriptures,)  hath  held 
and    doth    hold."     The  catechism   also  de- 
clares, that  we  avoid  the  damnation  of  our 
souls,  "by  taking  the  meaning  and  interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures  from  the  same  hand, 
from  which  we  received  the  book*itself,  that 
is  the  church."  (chap.   2.   ques.   2.)  Now  I 
argue  from  these  facts,  that  the  operation  of 
your  rule  is  to  annihilate  inquiry,  knowledge, 
and  faith,  properly  so  called;  and  shows  it  to 
be   a  most  vicious  and  fallible  rule. 

IV.    The  means  which  have  been  resorted 
to  by  your  church   in    support  of  her   ride, 
most   clearly  show  that  she  is  fallible,  and 
that  your  rule  is  utterly  indefensible.     I  men- 
tion only  a  few  specimens.     1st.  We  have 
seen  (in  my  Illrd  head,  letter  No.  2,)  that 
by  supreme,  binding,  infallible  law,  the  cir- 
culation and   perusal  of  the  Scriptures   are 
restricted    as    follows :     No   layman   has  a 
right  to  read  the  Bible  without  permission 
from  a  priest;  and  then,  no  Bible  not  trans- 
lated by  a  Roman  Catholic.     The  priest  is 
the  exclusive  judge  of  the  question,  whether 
or  not  he  is  fit  to  read  the  Roman  transla- 
tion.    Even  if  permitted  to  read  it,  he  is  by 
no  means  to  think    for  himself,  but  as  the 
church  thinks.     If  he  reads  without  license, 
he  cannot  get  absolution  of  sin,  until  he  do- 
livers  up  his  Bible — that  is,  for  the  time,  he 
is  under  the  curse  of  unpardoned  sin.     And 


28 


all  this  is  on  the  assumed  ground  that  God's 
word  will  injure  the  great  mass  of  men  if 
hey  read  it.  Again,  all  printers  selling  to 
those  not  licensed  to  read,  are  to  lose  the 
edition  printed,  and  otherwise  to  be  dealt 
with; — and  all  this  is  now  binding  on  all,  as 
well  American  citizens,  as  others:  and  those 
who  reject  these  laws  are  anathematised 
heretics.  £d.  A  permanent  committee,  styled 
the  "  Congregation  of  the  Index,"  has  charge, 
by  authority,  of  the  work  of  watching  the 
press,  and  prohibiting  the  reading  of  any 
books  they  disapprove.  "Their  Index, " 
which  enrols  these  books  has  swelled  to  a 
great  volume.  The  American  reader  will 
be  surprised  to  hear  that  Locke,  Bacon,  Sir 
Matthew  Hale,  Addison,  Robertson,  (Charles 
V.)  Walton,  (Polyglott)  Saurin,  Young, 
(Night  Thoughts,)  are  actually  prohibited; 
some  wholly;  others  in  chief  part !  (See  the 
10  "  Rules  of  the  Index,"  approved  by 
Pope  Pius  IV.)  3d.  Beside  this,  Pope  Cle- 
ment VIII.  in  the  year  1595,  published  a  de- 
cree that  all  Roman  Catholic  authors  written 
since  1515  (the  era  of  the  Reformation,) 
should  be  corrected  so  as  not  merely  to  blot 
out  doctrines  not  approved,  but  to  add  what 
was  necessary.  These  are  his  very  words: 
"In  libris  catholicorum  recentiorum.,  qui 
post  annum  christians  salutis  1515  conscripti 
sint,  si  id  quod  corrigendum  occurrit,  paucis 
demptis  aut  additis  emendare  posse  videatur, 
id  correctores  faciendum  curent;  sin  minus, 
omnino  deleatur."  And  worse  than  all,  the 
process  of  expurgation  has  reached  even  to 
the  "Fathers."  Johannes  Pappus  and  Fran- 
ciscus  Junius  published  an  edition  of  an  In- 
dex Expurgatorius,  prepared  by  the  Inquisi- 
tors, under  a  commission  from  the  king  of 
Spain.  From  that  it  appears,  that  the  works 
of  Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  and  Augustine  had 
passages  purged  from  them,  which  were  sup- 
posed to  be  unfriendly  to  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Faith.  Such  passages  for  example  as 
these  are  struck  out,*  "there  is  no  merit  but 
what  is  given  us  by  Christ."  "God  alone 
is  to  be  worshipped,"  (see  Bishop  Taylor's 
dissuasive  from  Popery,  chap.  1.  for  further 
reference.)  Now  we  say,  that  by  such  a 
process,  we  may  prove  any  thing  we  please. 
The  church  which  restricts  the  use  of  the 
Scriptures;  which  sits  enthroned  upon  the 
ruins  of  human  liberty;  which  forbids  men 
to  read,  to  print,  and  even  to  think,  except 
as  she  shall  dictate;  which  amends,  changes, 
and  tortures  the  writings  of  the  living  and 
the  dead,  and  in  support  of  her  system,  ven- 
tures to  approach  with  her  reforming  hand 
even  the  testimony  of  antiquity — has  evinced 


to  all  men  that  she  is  not  a  safe  depository 
of  the  truth;  that  she  is  utterly  fallible;  that 
she  does  by  these  acts  confess  and  prove  it; 
and  however  she  may  by  such  means  trans- 
mute all  things  that  she  touches  into  her  own 
image,  the  Lord  of  truth  never  appointed 
such  a  guide  to  his  people's  faith. 

V.  Allow  me  next  to  say,  that  your  rule, 
when  in  full  and  proper  force,  is  incompatible 
with  civil  liberty  and  the  rights  of  nations. 
Your  system,  with  the  Pope  at  its  head,  is  a 
species  of  universal  monarchy,  civil  and  reli- 
gious, extending  to  the.  whole  world.  As 
the  vicar  of  Christ,  he  claims  to  be  head  of 
the  church  and  of  the  state,  wherever  there 
is  either  on  earth.  Now,  for  the  proof: 
1st.  This  right  has  been  distinctly  claimed. 
Pope  Innocent  III.,  says,  "The  church,  my 
spouse,  is  not  married  to  me  without  bring- 
ing me  a  dowry.  She  hath  given  me  the 
mitre  for  the  priesthood,  and  the  crown  for 
the  kingdom — making  me  Lieutenant  of  Him 
who  hath  written  on  his  vesture  and  on  his 
thigh,  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords.  I 
enjoy  the  plenitude  of  power,  that  others 
may  say  of  me  next  to  God,  Out  of  his  full- 
ness we  have  received.^  (Itinerar.  Ital.  part 
2.  de  coron.  Rom.  Pon.)  I  know  no  equal 
to  this  blasphemy  but  the  ravings  of  a  mad- 
man who  once  said,  in  my  hearing,  that  he 
had  been  appointed  by  God  commander-in- 
chief  of  the  celestial  hosts!  The  reader  will 
please  compare  with  the  above,  John  i.  16. 
The  Bull  of  Clement  V.  for  crowning  the 
Emperor  Henry,  contains  the  distinct  as- 
sumption of  universal  temporal  empire;  so 
do  also  the  twenty-seven  sayings  of  Gregory 
VII.;  Clement  VI.  claims  the  samei  so  does 
the  canon  law,  the  Gregorian  Epistles,  Mar- 
tin V.,  Boniface  VIII.  &c;  not  to  mention 
Bellarmine,  and  a  number  of  other  writers  in 
your  church,  who  contend  for  the  same  rights. 
But  not  only  have  Roman  Catholic  writers 
and  Popes  contended  for  temporal  jurisdic- 
tion over  nations,  but  Councils  and  General 
Councils,  whose  authority  you  all  acknow- 
ledge, have  clone  the  same;  as  I  am  abun- 
dantly prepared  to  prove  if  you  deny  it. 
2d.  This  claim  has  been  on  divers  occasions 
carried  into  practical  operation,  so  as  to  leave 
no  doubt  as  to  what  it  means.  The  Pope's 
have  taxed  nation  after  nation  for  the  spirit- 
ual treasury  at  Rome,  so  that  "  Peters 
pence''  became  a  by-word  to  express  the 
tyranny  of  Rome.  They  have  deposed 
princes  and  set  others  up  in  their  stead; 
they  have  cut  asunder  the  very  bonds  of  so- 
ciety by  absolving  subjects  from  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  heretical  princes;  they  have  re- 


39 


quired  princes  to  exterminate  their  subjects, 
and  encouraged  subjects  to  destroy  their 
princes;  and  under  this  broad  claim,  they 
have  even  given  away  kingdoms  to  foreign 
princes,  and  have  made  crowns  and  nations 
their  play-things  and  their  toys.  It  is  a  cu- 
rious fact  to  an  American  citizen,  that  Spain 
and  Portugal  have  a  universal  grant  from  the 
Pope  of  the  two  Americas.  3d.  Institutions 
have  been  erected  and  encouraged  throughout 
the  world,  wherever  they  would  be  tolerated, 
and  systematic  and  legalized  persecutions 
have  from  age  to  age  been  carried  on,  to  sus- 
tain this  system  of  universal  empire.  At  the 
very  name  of  the  Inquisition,  some  of  the 
nations  of  Europe  still  tremble;  and  the 
heart  of  every  civilized  man  is  moved  with 
mingled  indignation  and  horror.  This  is  a 
painful,  but  necessary  topic.  I  will  not 
here  enlarge  on  it,  but  stand  prepared  with 
abundant  facts  to  substantiate  my  statements, 
if  you  deny  them.  Now  the  reasoning  from 
these  facts  against  your  rule  is  irresistible. 
God  has  made  all  men  free,  and  all  nations 
are  endowed  with  the  inalienable  rights  of 
self-government;  and  He  who  has  said, 
"My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  has 
also  said,  "Render  unto  Caesar  the  things 
that  are  Caesar's."  The  church  therefore 
which  claims  these  powers  is  at  war  with  the 
Bible;  and  the  rule  of  faith  under  which  she 
holds  these  doctrines,  and  practises  these 
usurpations,  must  be,  in  the  strongest  sense, 
a  fallible  and  misguiding  rule.  If  Roman 
Catholics  reject  these  principles,  as  every 
true  American  must,  and  as  I  doubt  not 
multitudes  of  your  people  in  this  country  and 
Great  Britain  do,  then  where  is  your  infalli- 
bility? But  you  say  the  church  is  infallible, 
and  her  system  unchangeably  fixed.  I  call 
on  you  then  for  a  defence. 

Once  more.  The  effect  of  your  rule  cf 
faith  is  to  corrupt  the  worship  of  God,  and  to 
engender  abundant  superstitions.  Idolatry, 
(excuse  the  word,)  is  enthroned  in  the  temple 
of  God,  by  the  bulls  of  popes,  and  the  decrees 
of  Councils  ;  and  is  practically  illustrated 
every  day  in  the  worship  of  the  church.  The 
spirituality  of  religion  is  lost  amidst  a  crowd 
of  images  and  relics;  of  interceding  saints, 
and  human  inventions:  and  ignorance  per- 
petuates what  your  erring  rule  has  legalized. 
Need  I  point  you  to  exorcisms  and  incanta- 
tions, to  prayers  to  the  saints,  and  worship  of 
the  Virgin  Mary,  to  holy  water,  and  the  bap- 
tism of  bells,  to  pilgrimages,  and  penances, 
and  the  crowd  of  superstitions  which  are  en- 
couraged in  your  church  in  confirmation  of 
my  statements?     Who  would  believe  it,  if  it 


had  not  been  seen,  that  in  the  nineteenth 
century  of  the  Christian  era,  there  is  a  great 
anniversary  day,  set  apart  in  "  Rome,  the 
mother  and  mistress  of  churches,"  for  bless- 
ing all  the  horses  and  asses  and  other  beasts 
of  that  great  city,  whilst  the  same  pontiff 
who  sanctions  such  a  system,  publicly  de- 
nounces Bible  Societies,  as  the  organizations 
and  servants  of  the  devil?  I  ask. if  this  is 
the  product  of  infallible  guidance;  or  if  the 
rule  which  sanctions,  teaches,  and  perpetu- 
ates such  things,  can  have  been  given  us  by 
God  to  direct  us  in  matters  of  religion  ? 

I  would  superadd  these  heads  to  those  con- 
tained in  my  former  letter;  and  must  wait 
in  expectation  of  your  redeeming  the  pledge 
to  answer  them  hereafter.  In  the  mean  time 
that  you  may  have  no  ground  of  complaint, 
even  in  appearance,  I  will  close  by  briefly 
noticing  your  second  edition  of  the  ten  Heads 
against  our  rule  of  faith.  As  to  all  you 
say  about  my  denying  the  word  of  God  to  be 
a  judge  of  controversies,  our  readers  will 
judge  whether  you  have  not  attempted  to 
blind  them  by  sophistry,  rather  than  convince 
them  by  argument.  You  knew  that  I  spoke 
of  God  as  the  Ruler,  the  Bible  as  the  Rule. 
God  is  the  judge  and  the  only  judge,  proper- 
ly so  called.  The  Bible  contains  the  record 
of  his  infallible  judgments.  It  is  God  speak- 
ing to  man.  Again,  you  so  evidently  and 
consciously  labour  to  disentangle  yourself 
from  my  exposure  of  your  use  of  2  Peter  i. 
20.  (on  private  interpretation,)  that  I  am 
entirely  willing  to  leave  the  subject  to  speak 
for  itself,  without  another  word. 

Here  allow  me  to  remark,  that  in  your  two 
letters,  rvhichfwo  are  one,  your  current  reason- 
ing is  this:  There  are  certain  defects  which 
no  infallible  rule  can  have,  the  Protestant  rule 
has  these;  therefore,  it  is  not  infallible.  Now 
I  have  shown,  (so  clearly  that  you  pre- 
tend not  to  refute  it.)  that  these  defects  are 
inherent  in  your  rule;  therefore,  at  every  step, 
your  own  blows  return  upon  your  own  cause. 
The  force  of  this  reasoning  is  irresistible,  if 
you  were  honest  in  using  it;  for  it  is  your  own 
reasoning.  Yet  when  the  blow  rebounds, 
you  cry  out,  this  logic  was  to  destroy  the 
Protestant  rule,  not  mine.  I  was  not  talking 
of  my  rule!  You  press  me  to  keep  to  the 
point.  What  is  the  point?  The  rule  of  faith. 
Only  do  not  touch  Mr.  Hughes'  rule  of  faith. 
But  I  not  only  thus  exposed  your  rule  of 
faith,  I  also  defended  our  own  rule  from  point 
to  point.  Let  us  summarily  review  these  old 
acquaintances. 

I.   "  Christ   never   appointed  the    Protes- 
tant rule."     "  Christ  never  wrote  any  part  of 


30 


the  Old  or  New  Testament,  and  never  com- 
manded any  part  to  be  written  by  his  apos- 
tles." (1.)  Let  us  apply  this  to  your  rule. 
Christ  never  wrote  or  commanded  his  apos- 
tles to  write  the  Apocryphal  books,  or  un- 
written traditions  ;  therefore,  Christ  never 
appointed  them  as  a  part  of  the  rule  of  faith. 
(2.)  Either  the  prophets  and  apostles  were 
moved  by  inspiration  when  they  wrote,  or 
they  were  not.  If  they  were,  then  they  wrote 
by  divine  authority.  But  you  do  not  deny 
that  they  were.  Hence  your  statement  is 
false,  and  if  it  proves  any  thing,  it  is  that  the 
Bible  is  not  God's  word.  Your  next  proof  is 
that  the  "Protestant  rule  of  faith  did  not 
exist  till  the  end  of  the  first  century."  Now 
this  is  a  mere  play  on  words.  I  say  that 
the  Divine  Revelation  is  our  only  rule  of 
faith.  The  Bible  contains  that  Revelation 
finally  made  out.  The  precise  equivalent  to 
this  existed  while  Christ  and  his  apostles 
were  on  earth,  viz.  the  Old  Testament  and 
their  infallible  instructions.  Before  inspira- 
tion ceased,  the  Bible  was  completed.  I  will 
carry  out  your  argument.  The  Bible  is  a 
printed  book;  but  at  the  death  of  John,  the  art 
of  printing  being  unknown,  the  word  of  God 
was  written  with  pens,  therefore  the  Bible 
is  not  God's  word.  In  the  latter  part  of  this 
head,  you  virtually  deny  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  of  equal  authority  with  the  New. 
Is  this  so? 

II.  You  call  for  "  Scripture  warrant" 
that  the  Bible  is  the  rule  of  faith.  We  re- 
ply as  before,  1.  The  presumption.,  (prior  to 
the  proof,)  always  is,  that  the  Bible  alone  is 
the  rule  of  faith.  I  ask,  will  you  join  the 
Infidel  and  say,  that  the  presumption  is  the 
other  way  ?  2.  If  any  thing  else  is  to  be 
added  to  the  Bible,  those  who  say  so  are 
bound  to  prove  it.  Hence  the  attack  on  the 
pretensions  of  your  rule  is  the  fair  order  of 
discussion.  Feeling  this  to  be  a  sore  spot, 
you  cover  it  up.  3.  The  only  admissible 
proof,  as  God  tells  us,  is  a  miracle.  Well, 
therefore,  may  you  shift  and  turn  and  be  si- 
lent, to  shun  a  call  you  cannot  meet.  The 
only  reply  you  make  to  this  reasoning  is  to 
charge  me  with  saying,  that  "  the  Protestant 
Rule  is  founded  on  presumption;"  a  misre- 
presentation so  glaring,  that  unwilling  to  dis- 
trust your  candour,  I  must  charge  it  on  your 
cause.  4.  I  then  gave  you  Scripture  war- 
rant for  our  rule,  which  you  cannot  torture 
so  as  to  weaken  its  direct  proof.  I  will  ad- 
duce more  Scripture  proofs  in  connexion 
with  which  the  reader  will  please  to  exa- 
mine 2  Tim.  iii.  14,  17.  and  Isaiah  viii.  20. 
In  John  vii.   17,  we  are  tanght  that  obedi- 


ence gives  certainty  to  doctrinal  know- 
ledge. From  1  Peter  i.  23.  1  Thess.  ii. 
13.  James  i.  18,  that  the  Bible  in  the  hands 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  instrument  of  con- 
verting the  soul.  John  xvii.  17.  The  Bible 
is  the  means  of  sanctification.  Eph.  vi.  17. 
Hebrews  iv.  12.  It  is  the  great  power  of 
God.  Gal.  i.  8.  It  is  the  rule  by  which 
even  Apostles  are  to  be  tested,  (though  the 
Pope  refuses.)  1  John  iv.  1 — 3.  It  is  the 
people's  rule  to  try  the  spirits;  no  infallible 
Judge  is  named.  John  xii.  48.  It  is  the 
rule  of  judgment  at  the  great  day.  John  xx. 
30 — 33.  One  Gospel  is  sufficient  to  give 
eternal  life.  Luke  xvi.  29 — 31.  Nothing,  no, 
not  a  miracle  can  convince  those  who  reject 
it.  Rev.  xxii.  18.  Awful  judgments,  (I  beg 
vou  to  look  narrowly  at  this,)  are  denounced 
against  those  who  tamper  with  even  a  part 
of  the  Bible.  The  church  who  would  mend 
this  rule,  is  entitled  to  the  epitaph  of  him 
who  was  destroyed  by  the  nostrums  of  quacks, 
and  directed  to  be  written  on  his  tomb, 
"  I  was  well — I  wanted  to  be  better — and 
here  I  am." 

III.  You  argue  "as  the  Bible  is  known 
through  the  medium  of  interpretation,  and  as 
the  Protestant  medium  is  fallible,  therefore, 
the  rule  is  fallible."  1.  I  reply,  until  you 
prove  your  infallibility,  which  you  have  not 
yet  done,  you  are  in  a  much  worse  case  than 
we,  as  your  Apocrypha,  unwritten  Tradi- 
tions, and  one  hundred  folios,  with  "all  the 
Fathers,"  exceed  in  number  our  Bible,  since 
you  have  to  interpret  all  these,  to  get  at  the 
true  sense.  2.  Your  reasoning,  reduced  to 
form,  is  this;  every  rule,  (say  one  for  mea- 
suring distances,)  is  handled  by  men;  but 
men  are  fallible — therefore  every  rule  is 
false — and  cannot  measure  infallibly — or,  in 
other  words,  none  but  an  infallible  man  can 
use  the  Bible.  Is  not  the  following  reason- 
ing just  as  good  ?  Either  it  rains,  or  it  does 
not  rain — if  it  rains,  it  does  not  rain — if  it 
does  not  rain,  it  rains.  Then  does  it  rain, 
or  not  rain  ? 

IV.  You  say  the  Bible  cannot  prove  its 
own  authenticity  and  inspiration;  therefore, 
it  alone  cannot  be  the  rule  of  faith.  We  re- 
ply— l.  The  inspiration  of  Scripture  may  be 
proved  from  prophecy,  from  its  contents, 
&c.  2.  On  the  question,  'are  these  the  au- 
thentic or  genuine  books  which  they  profess 
to  be,?  you  confound  the  proof  of  a  thing  with 
the  matter  of  it;  as  if  you  had  said,  a  twelve 
inch  rule  is  not  a  true  rule,  unless  it  can 
prove  itself.  This  is  absurd.  Your  illus- 
tration of  the  will  is  every  how  faulty.  The 
testator  is  Christ — the  Bible  is  the  will — the 


31 


church  is  the  heir.  Who  is  the  court  before 
whom  the  proof  is  to  be  laid?  Why  the 
church,  you  say.  But  who  gives  it  authori- 
ty ?  The  church.  No — the  testator,  for  the 
church  is  heir.  Who  is  the  witness  ?  The 
church  again. — Yet  with  this  figure  you 
would  prove  your  point!  Now  the  case  is 
this.  Here  is  a  will.  We  want  witnesses  to 
prove  that  the  testator  made  the  will — not  to 
give  it  authority:  that  comes  from  the  tes- 
tator. So  it  is  precisely  with  the  Bible. 
The  church  does  not  give  it  authority;  the 
Bible  gives  authority  to  the  church.  The 
testimony  of  those  who  lived  in  the  Apostles' 
days  is  what  we  want.  Jewish  writers  tes- 
tify, Heathen  writers  testify,  and  Christian 
writers  testify,  that  this  is  the  Book  of  God. 
If  you  call  this  tradition,  then  it  is  the  tradi- 
tion of  written  testimony;  it  is  the  tradition 
of  universal  antiquity;  it  is  such  tradition  as 
falsifies  your  unwritten  traditions,  your  apo- 
cryphal books,  and  your  judge  of  controver- 
sies. If  this  be  not  so,  will  you  tell  me  when 
and  where  the  church  authority  settled  the 
canon? — In  a  word,  if  the  church  of  Rome 
had  never  existed,  the  proof  would  have  been 
entire. 

V.  You  are  constrained  to  admit  here  that 
you  make  a  misstatement  in  the  former  letter 
of  one  entire  century  .'  You  also  misinterpret 
my  statement  as  to  "  sacred  books"  being 
doubtful.  I  said  "some"  (not  books,  but 
men)  were  doubtful,  as  to  four  of  the  many 
books.  In  the  mean  time  the  churches  had 
u  all  the  books,"  and  these  doubts  of  some, 
(men,  not  books,)  did  not  make  it  less  truly, 
the  real  and  full  rule.  Of  course,  besides 
the  distrust  occasioned  by  such  unfairness, 
your  conclusion  that  the  canon  was  so  long 
uncertain,  drawn  from  this  perversion,  falls 
to  the  ground.  I  also  refer  the  reader  un- 
der this  head,  to  the  contradiction  I  have 
there  exposed,  to  which  you  render  no  re- 
ply. You  assume  that  the  church  knew  ;  and 
yet  argue  against  our  rule,  that  it  was  not 
known.  Now  which  is  true  ?  If  the  former, 
your  reasoning  is  false  ;  if  the  latter,  your  rule 
is  fallible. 

VI.  &  VII.  There  are  two  methods  of  set- 
tling disputes  ;  reason  and  force.     You  take  | 


the  latter;  we  the  former.  There  are  two 
rules,  the  Bible  and  the  church  of  Home. 
You  assert  that  the  Bible  has  failed,  and  thus 
make  your  church  better  than  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  I  call  for  your  proof.  As  to  here- 
sy, Augustine,  whom  you  claim  and  quote, 
mentions  eighty-eight  heresies,  down  to  his 
time !  I  will  in  due  season  give  you  more  of 
your  own  history  on  this  topic. 

VIII.  &  IX.  You  have  "  slurred  the  notes," 
to  use  your  own  expression,  and  made  no  re- 
ply to  me.  1. 1  have  proved,  (see  introduction 
to  former  letter,)  that  by  confession  of  Roman 
Catholics,  they  are  as  uncertain  as  Protes- 
tants. 2.  I  have  proved  in  this  letter,  (see 
head  on  uncertainty,)  that  you  are  wholly  un- 
certain:— and  now,  3.  You  have  at  last  to 
adopt  our  rule,  or  give  up  the  question.  For 
you  get  at  the  proof  of  your  infallible  rule  by 
fallible  men  ;  and  you  get  the  proof  entirely 
from  the  Bible.  Is  not  this  then  making  the 
Bible  interpreted  by  fallible  men,  your  rule 
of  faith  ! 

And  now  Sir,  in  closing  this  letter,  I  wish 
you  to  know  that  I  will  not  be  diverted  from 
the  fair  and  full  discussion  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject, viz.  the  rule  of  faith.  Common  sense 
demands  it;  and  the  third  and  fifth  articles 
in  our  agreement  justify  it.  I  wish  you  also 
to  understand,  that  all  I  say  is  to  be  applied 
to  your  system,  and  not  to  your  people.  In 
this  country  especially,  that  Proteus-system 
conforms  itself  as  much  as  possible  to  the 
advance  of  the  age,  and  the  genius  of  a  free 
and  thinking  people.  You  must  go  to  Spain, 
to  South  America,  to  Rome,  to  see  your  sys- 
tem. The  people  here  know  not  the  half. 
It  is  in  spite  of  being  Roman  Catholics — not 
in  consequence  of  it,  that  you  number  the 
good  and  wise  among  your  people. 

Your  challenge  to  our  whole  church  pro- 
vokes a  smile  among  us. — When  I  need  any 
aid  to  meet  your  calls,  I  will  tell  you  so.  I 
am,  I  own,  among  the  most  insufficient  of 
the  sons  of  that  venerated  church  to  which  I 
belong;  but  she  feels  as  if  no  mighty  shield 
were  needed  to  quench  your  arrows,  and 
cover  her  sacred  bosom  from  your  assaults. 
I  remain  yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY... ...N°.  5. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


February  28,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — I  am  delighted  to  find  that  the 
pressure  of  your  "official  duties"  has  not 
prevented  you,  in  this  instance,  from  reply- 
ing to  my  letter,  within  the  time  prescribed. 
But  writing  and  reasoning  are  not  the  same 
thing; — and  if  you  had  replied  not  merely  to 
my  letter,  but  to  my  arguments  against  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith,  you  would,  in  my 
humble  opinion,  have  rendered  a  better  ser- 
vice to  the  cause  in  which  you  are  engaged, 
at  the  same  expense  of  postage  and  of  press- 
work.  The.  rapidity  of  transportation,  as 
well  as  of  composition,  has  probably  con- 
tributed its  share  to  the  confusion,  in  which 
the  topic  returns  from  New  York.  When  I 
last  had  the  pleasure  ot  addressing  you,  I  re- 
quested you,  by  the  respect  you  entertain  for 
your  own  signature  at  the  head  of  this  letter, 
to  confine  yourself  to  the  actual  "  subject  of 
discusrionfor  the  time  being,  and  to  bring  for- 
ward no  second  question,  until  the  first  shall 
have  been  exhaust erf.''  The  reader,  who 
will  take  the  trouble  to  cast  his  eye  over  the 
first  two  or  three  columns  of  your  reply,  will 
perceive  with  what  elaborate  fidelity  you 
have  violated  your  own  regulation.  I  can 
hardly  think  of  a  subject,  that  has  been  omit- 
ted in  your  enumeration; — except  original 
sin,  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  and  the  cov- 
enant of  election.  It  would  seem,  that  you 
had  copied  the  whole  theological  index — the 
entire  table  of  contents.  For  my  own  part, 
1  do  not  find  the  space  allowed  us,  ample 
enough  for  the  multiplied  evidences,  apper- 
taining to  the  single  question  at  issue  be- 
tween us.  It  is  true  the  fifth  rule  allows 
you  to  "  follow  me  according  to  the  dictates 
of  your  own  judgment."  But  the  fifth  rule 
cannot  warrant  the  violation  of  those  which 
precede  it.  Your  judgment,  in  this  case, 
seems  to  prefer  the  instinctive,  but  wily  logic 
of  the  bird,  which  is  observed  to  quit  the 
nest  at  the  first  approach  of  the  truant  school- 
boy, and  to  flutter  about  in  every  other  di- 
rection. For  having  adopted  this  course,  I 
am  willing  to  grant  you  the  merit  of  sagacity. 
If  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith  is  founded  nei- 

F 


ther  on  reason,  nor  revelation,  but  on  a  ma- 
nifest delusion,  which  prejudice  alone  has 
consecrated,  then  you  did  well  to  abandon 
its  defence.  This  will  account  for  the  im- 
patience of  your  pen,  and  your  premature 
attack  on  the  Catholic  rule,  in  which,  by  in- 
troducing the  old  catalogue  of  "  questions," 
you  seem  determined  to  bear  me  down,  if 
not  by  the  quality  of  your  reasoning,  at  least 
by  the  quantity  and  confusion  of  your  mat- 
ter. 

You  are,  indeed,  correct  in  saying,  that 
the  rule  of  faith  is  the  subject  of  discussion. 
And  although  I  asked  you  to  meet  me  in  the 
investigation  of  the  Protestant  principle /2rs£, 
as  the  natural  order  of  proceeding:  yet  I  am 
candid  enough  to  admit  your  right  to  deny 
this  request.  The  argument  of  comparison 
seems  to  be  your  favourite — and  the  Pana- 
cea of  religion,  which  you  have  provided  for 
the  acknowledged  infirmities  of  the  Protes- 
tant rule  of  faith,  is  the  everlasting  assertion, 
that  "our  rule  works  worse  than  yours." 
Since,  however,  you  insist  upon  it,  that  both 
shall  be  placed  side  by  side,  for  simultane- 
ous investigation  and  comparison,  I  shall 
proceed  to  comply  with  the  requisition. 

"  The  parties  agree  that  there  is  cm  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith,  established  by  Christ,  to 
guide  us  in  matters  of  religion,  and  to  deter- 
mine disputes  in  his  Church.'''  This,  Rev'd 
Sir,  is  the  standard,  by  which,  according  to 
your  own  agreement,  the  true  rule  ot  Chris- 
tian belief  is  to  be  determined.  Now  the 
professed  principle  of  Protestantism  is  "the 
Bible  alone,  interpreted  by  each  individual 
for  himself."  (If  I  mistake  the  Protestant 
rule,  I  request  you  to  correct  me.)  I  have 
given,  under  ten  distinct  heads,  the  reasons, 
which  make  it  manifest  to  my  mind,  that  the 
Protestant  principle,  though  specious  in  its 
theory,  and  flattering  to  the  self-sufficiency 
of  the  human  mind,  is  found  to  be  a  delusion 
in  practice,  and  does  not  correspond,  in  a 
single  property,  with  the  definition  of  the 
rule  instituted  by  the  Redeemer  of  men. 
The  Protestant  principle  is  flattering  to  hu- 
man pride,  by  teaching  the  most  unlearned 
individual,  that  God  has  given  him  a  Bible 


34 


and  an  understanding,  and  that,  by  the  ap- 
plication of  the  one  to  the  other,  he  cannot  be 
deceived,  since  it  is  the  Almighty  himself 
that  speaks  in  the  text.  -But  who  speaks  in 
the  understanding? — By  this  principle,  how- 
ever, he  is  bound  to  frame  his  own  creed ; 
and  though  all  Christendom  should  agree  in 
pronouncing  his  belief  a  heresy,  he  is  bound 
to  hold,  that  all  Christendom  is  in  error,  and 
that  he  alone  is  right,  since  he  follows  the 
infallible  word  of  God,  the  Bible  alone! 
This  principle  is  the  more  delusive  and 
dangerous,  because  it  carries  with  it  a  seem- 
ing air  of  respect  and  reverence  for  the  in- 
spired writings;  whilst  in  fact  there  is  not 
a  text  in  the  sacred  volume,  which  it  does 
not  give  up  to  be  broken  on  the  wheel  of 
private  interpretation.  It  entirely  overlooks 
the  distinction,  that  it  is  not  the  book,  but 
the  true  meaning  of  the  book,  which  consti- 
tutes the  word  of  God.  It  is  thus,  that  Pro- 
testants by  following  out  their  own  rule 
of  faith  to  its  legitimate  consequences,  have 
walked,  under  the  pretended  guidance  of 
the  Bible  alone,  into  the  doctrines  of  Soci- 
nianism.  This  has  been  called  "the  grand 
heresy  of  the  Reformation;" — but  how  bit- 
terly may  its  professors  retort  on  their  Pro- 
testant brethren  of  other  denominations. 
"You  have  proclaimed,"  they  may  say,  "that 
since  the  Reformation  every  man  has  the 
right  to  interpret  the  Scripture  for  himself, 
and  when  we  exercise  this  right,  you  stig- 
matize us  with  the  brand  of  heresy  !  You 
are  truly  consistent,  Gentlemen  !  You  tell 
us  to  interpret  the  sacred  record  for  our- 
selves, and  when  we  follow  your  advice,  we 
are  heretics,  forsooth."  Can  this,  then  Rev'd 
Sir,  be  the  rule  appointed  by  Christ?  But 
you  will  ask  me,  as  usual,  in  what  is  the 
Catholic  principle  better?  And  it  is  but 
reasonable,  that  I  should  endeavour  to  satisfy 
your  inquiry. 

Our  rule  of  faith  is  laid  down  in  the  apos- 
tles' creed.  "  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church."  This  rule,  you  perceive,  does  not 
exclude,  but  comprises  the  belief  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  By  the  Church,  I  understand, 
that  visible  society  of  Christians,  composed 
of  the  people,  who  are  taught,  and  the  Pas- 
tors who  teach,  by  virtue  of  a  certain  divine 
commission,  recorded  in  the  28th  chapter  of 
St.  Matthew,  addressed  to  the  apostles  and 
their  legitimate  successors,  "  until  the  end  of 
the  world."  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  teach  all 
nations:  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatso- 
ever I  have  commanded  you:  and, behold  lam 


with  you  all  days,  even  to  the  consummation 
of  the  world."  19.  20.  By  consulting  the  pa- 
ges of  the  New  Testament,  not  as  an  inspir- 
ed book,  if  you  choose,  but  as  an  authentic 
historical  document,  in  which  sense  it  is  ad- 
mitted even  by  Deists,  I  find  that  Jesus 
Christ  proved  the  divinity  of  his  mission  and 
of  his  doctrine  by  evidences,  which  it  required 
the  power  of  the  Deity  to  exhibit.  Alter 
having  thus  proved  himself  to  be  infallible, 
he  required  that  men  should  believe  his  doc- 
trines under  pain  of  eternal  ruin.  "  He, 
that  believeth  not,  shall  be  condemned. 
Mark  xvi.  16.  Now,  you  have  agreed,  that 
the  rule,  by  which  our  belief  is  to  be  guided, 
was  appointed  by  Christ  himself,  and  is  there- 
fore infallible — since  it  would  be  blasphemy 
to  say,  that  Christ  has  appointed  a  principle 
of  guidance,  capable  of  leading  astray.  In 
my  first  argument  against  the  pretension  of  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith,  I  showed  that  Christ 
did  not  establish  it.  That  he  did  establish  the 
Ccttholic  rule,  is  what  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
demonstrate. 

I.  In  the  commission  referred  to  above, 
all  nations  and  all  days,  even  to  the  end  of 
the  world,  are  included.  Therefore  the  ful- 
filment of  the  Saviour's  injunction,  required 
that  the  apostles  should  have  successors  in 
the  ministry  of  "  teaching;"  since  the  term  of 
human  life,  which  remained  to  them,  bore  no 
proportion  of  the  extent  of  the  "  commission," 
which  was  limited  only  by  the  boundaries  of 
the  universe — "  all  nations" — and  of  time — 
"all  days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the 
world.''''  I  defy  you,  Rev.  Sir,  to  detect  er- 
ror, either  in  the  premises  or  conclusion  of 
this  reasoning.  Since,  then,  Christ  appoint- 
ed a  perpetual  succession  of  pastors  in  his 
Church,  for  the  purpose  of  "teaching  all  na- 
tions," during  '•'■all  days,"  it  is  not  by  exercis- 
ing an  unfounded  or  arbitrary  prerogative,but 
in  simple  obedience  to  the  injunction  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  that  Catholics  hearken  to  the 
voice  of  the. church,  and  the  teaching  of  its 
pastors.  I  called  on  you  in  a  former  letter, 
to  show  that  Christ  established  the  Protestant 
rule;  and  those,  who  never  before  suspect- 
ed the  delusion  of  that  principle,  must  have 
been  disappointed,  and  pained  at  the  lame 
manner,  in  which  you  endeavour  to  escape 
from  the  difficulty.  They  were  obliged  to  sup- 
pose, that  the  "commission,"  instead  of  ex- 
tending to  "  all  nations  and  all  limes"  as 
Christ  had  said,  expired  with  the  apostles; 
— and  to  suppose  that  every  believer  had  the 
inspired  instructions  of  some  one  of  the 
"twelve,"  and  a  copy  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment;— and  to  suppose  that  the  latter,  toge- 


35 


ther  with  the  last  "  apostle,"  (after  the  death 
of  the  others,)  constituted  what  you  call  "the 
equivalent  to  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith," 
during  the  interval  between  the  ascension  ol 
Christ  and  the  death  of  St.  John.— And,  final- 
ly, they  were  obliged  to   suppose,  that  from 
the  moment  of  his  decease,  all  living  authori- 
ty of  "teaching"  \Vas  supplanted,  by  placing 
the  Bible  alone  in  the  hands  of  each  individu- 
al;  leaving  him  to  infer,  that  the  dreams  of 
private  interpretation  constitute   the  rule  of 
Christian  belief,   appointed    by  the  Saviour 
himself'/     And  all  this  on  your  authority! — 
And  all  this,  in  opposition  to  testimony,  which 
Protestants  profess  to  respect.     For,  besides 
the  "commission  to  teagh^  the  Son  of  God 
has  declared  to  the  same  effect,  "  I  will  pray 
the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  com- 
forter, that  he  may  abide  with  you  forever, 
the  Comforter  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom 
the  Father  will  send  in  my  name:  He  shall 
teach  youallthings,&ud  bring  all  things  toyour 
remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto 
you."     John  xiv.  16,  26.     "  He,  that  heareth 
you,  heareth  me."  Luke  x.  16.     In  the  same 
manner  has  he  pledged  his  veracity,  that  "the 
gates  of  hell    shall    not  prevail  against   his 
Church"— that,  "He  himself  will  abide  with 
it  forever" — and  St.  Paul    tells   us,    that 
"faith  comes  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the 
word  of  God" — and  that  Christ  has  "given 
some  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  some 
evangelists,  and  some  pastors  a.\d  teachers, 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work 
of  the  ministry."  Eph.   iv.    11.     The   same 
apostle  elsewhere  says  of  the  church,  that  it 
is  "the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth."   Will  you, 
then,  Rev.  Sir,  impugn  the  veracity  of  the  Sa- 
viour, by  asserting,  that  when,  in  these  texts, 
he  said    "  for  ever,' *  he  meant  only  "till  the 
death  of  the  last  apostle?"     If  you  say  so, 
the  Universalist  will  comprehend  the  value 
of  the  admission;  and  he  will   borrow  your 
key  to  explain  everlasting  punishment. 

The  question  is  not  now,  Rev.  Sir,  whe- 
ther it  is  to  the  pastors  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic church,  or  to  those  of  the  Protestant 
churches,  that  belongs  the  inheritance  of 
this  divine  commission  and  of  these  immortal 
promises.  The  question  is  not  now,  what 
are  the  marks  of  the  true  church; — but  the 
question  is  the  true  ride  of  faith.  The  texts 
of  Scripture  adduced  above,  prove  that  the 
Catholic  principle  has  the  first  property  of 
the  true  rule;  viz.  "  it  was  established  by 
Christ."  But  this  is  not  all.  To  prove 
that,  in  the  primitive  church,  these  texts 
were  understood  in  the  sense  in  which  I 
have  used  them,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of 


quoting  briefly  the  testimony  of  two  credible 
witnesses.     St.  Irenaeus,  the  disciple  of  St. 
Polycarp,  says:  "supposing  the  apostles  had 
not  left  us  the  Scriptures,  ought  we  not,  still 
to  have  followed   the  ordinance  of  tradition, 
which  they  consigned  to  those  to  whom  they 
committed    the    churches  ?     It   is   this  ordi- 
nance of   traditions,  which  many  nations  of 
barbarians,  believing  in  Christ,  follow,  with- 
out  the   use  of  letters   or   ink."    I  ten.  adv. 
hseres.   L.  iv.  C.  64.     Tertullian,  who  lived 
two  hundred  years   after  Christ,  says  in  his 
book  of  Prescription,  pp.  36,  37:  "  that  doc- 
trine is  evidently  true,  which  was  first  deliv- 
ererf. — 0n  the  contrary,  that  is  false,  which  is 
of  a  later  date.     This  maxim  stands  immove- 
able against  the  attempts  of  all  late  heresies. 
Let  such,  then,  produce   the   origin  of  thei? 
churches:  let  them  show  the  succession  ofj 
their  bishops  from  the  apostles  or  their  disci- 
ples.    If  you  live    near   Italy,  you    see  be- 
fore your  eyes  the  Roman  Church.     HappyJ 
church!  to   which   the  apostles   left  the   in-" 
heritance    of    doctrines    with    their    blood  fl 
Where  Peter  was  crucified,  like  his  master; 
where  Paul   was  beheaded  like  the  Baptist. 
If  this  be  so,  it  is  plain,  as  we  have  said,  that 
heretics  are  not  to   be  allowed  to  appeal  to 
the  Scripture,    since  they  have   no  claim  to 
it."     Similar  to  this  is  the   testimony  of  St.' 
Vincent,  of  Lerius,  in  the  fifth  century.    "II 
never  was,"  says  he,   "  or  is,  or  will  be  law- 
ful for  Catholic  Christians  to  teach  any  doc- 
trine, except  that  which   they  once  received: 
and    it  ever  was,  and   is,   and  will  be  their 
duty,  to  condemn  those,  who  do  so.     Do  the 
heretics,    then,    appeal    to    the    Scriptures? 
Certainly  they  do,  and  this  with  the  utmost 
confidence.     You  will  see  them  running  has- 
tily through  the  different  books  of  Holy  Writ, 
those  of  Moses,  Kings,  the  Psalms,  the  Gos- 
pels, &c.      At  home  and  abroad,  in  their  dis- 
courses  and  in  their  writings,   they  hardly 
produce  a  sentence,    which  is  not   crowded 
with  the  words  of  Scripture .Let   us  re- 
member,   however,    that  Satan    transformed 
himself  into  an  ang;el  of  light.     If  he   could 
turn  the  Scriptures  (referring  to  St.  Matt.  iv. 
6.)    against   the  Lord  of  Majesty,  what,  use 
may  he  not  make  of  them,  against  us  poor 
mortals.. ....Finally,"   he  continues,  "the  di- 
vine text  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the 
tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church."     Now,  let 
me  inform  you,  that  the  word  "  tradition,'' 
in  all  these  passages,  means  simply,  the  doc- 
trines transmitted   from  the  apostles,  in  the 
ministry  of  teaching  by  the  Pastors  of  the 
church. 

The  next  evidence  I  shall  produce  in  sup- 


36 


port  of  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  and  against 
the  Protestant  principle,  is  derived  from  a 
source,  which  I  am  sure  you  will  respect.  It 
is  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  your  own 
church,  laid  down  in  the  Westninster  Con- 
fession. 

The  first  is  the  Baptism  of  infants;  sanc- 
tioned by  the  "  teaching"  of  the  Pastors  of 
the  Church,  but  certainly  not  susceptible  of 
.proof  by  any  text  of  sacred  Scripture.  (Page 
159.)  The  second  is  the  violation  of  the  Sab- 
bath, commanded  by  God  to  be  sanctified 
(Exod.  xx.  8.)  and  the  substitution  of  Sunday 
{without  the  authority  of  any  single  text  of 
Scripture;  but  in  accordance  with  the  con- 
stant "  teaching"  of  the  Pastors  of  the  church 
f(page  132.)  The  third  is,  in  the  mutual  pro- 
mises exacted  botli  from  the  minister  and  the 
congregation  in  the  ceremony  of  ordaining, 
when  the  former  is  obliged  to  promise  "  sub- 
mission to  the  discipline  of  the  church,"  and 
the  latter,  both  "  obedience  and  submission 
unto  the  new  minister,  as  having  rule  over 
them  in  the  Lord."  (page  590.)  Is  there  any 
scriptural  evidence  to  show  that  St.  Paul  re- 
quired such  promises,  from  either  Titus  or 
Timothy,  previous  to  ordination?  I  use  this 
reference  not  as  an  argument,  but  rather  as  a 
commentary;  which,  considering  its  source,  is 
■  no  small  compliment  to  the  Catholic  rule  of 
'faith,  at  the  expense  of  your  own.  I  may 
add  also,  that  in  the  year  1729,  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia  passed  an  act,  called  the  "adopt- 
in^  act,"  by  which  not  only  candidates,  but 
professed  ministers,  were  "  obliged}9  to  adopt 
the  Westminster  Confession,  as  containing 
the  summary  of  scriptural  doctrine," — by 
way,  I  suppose,  of  proving  the  sufficiency  of 
the  "  Bible  alone;  interpreted  by  each  indi- 
vidual for  himself."  (See  Dr.  Miller's  2d  and 
6th  letters  to  Presbyterians.) 

My  first  conclusion,  then,  is,  that  the  Ca- 
tholic rule  of  fath  was  instituted  by  Christ; 
that  it  is  the  rule,  which  prevailed,  except 
amon"-  the  deluded  votaries  of  heresy,  in  all 
the  former  ages  of  the  Christian  Church — 
and  finally,  thatit  is  the  principle  to  which  the 
Presbyterians  are  obliged  to  have  recourse, 
on  a  variety  of  occasions.  The  reader  of 
course,  must  judge,  whether  the  facts  and 
the  reasoning  authorize  this  first  conclusion. 
II.  Is  it  infallible?  If  the  foregoing  con- 
clusion be  correct,  it  must  be  infallible,  ac- 
cording to  your  own  definition — since  "it 
was  established  by  Christ."  At  this  stage 
of  the  comparison  and  investigation  of  the  two 
rules, let  us  pause  and  com  pare  notes.  You  say 
that  the  Scriptures  are  infallible:  and  I  agree 
with  you  entirely  in  this  belief. — But,  then, you 


will  agree  with  me,  that  the  infallibility  of  the 
Scripture  consists  in  the  sense  and  not  in  the 
ink,  binding  or  paper  of  which  the  volume  is 
composed.  Itself  declares  that  "the  letter 
killelh,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life.''  The  Pro- 
testant principle,  therefore,  is  not  rational,  for 
this  reason,  that,  although  the  Book  be  in 
every  case  infallible,  the  private  interpreta- 
tion of  the  book  is,  in  every  case,  confessedly 
the  reverse.  If  you  hear  a  Unitarian  quote 
Scripture,  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a 
very  good  man,  but  ■nothing more; — a  Sweden- 
borgian,  to  prove  that  this  "  very  good  man" 
was  Jehovah  the  eternal  God,  and  that  the 
idea  of  two  other  distinct  persons  in  the  Deity 
is  an  error; — if  you  hear  the  Episcopalian 
quoting  it  to  establish  the  distinction  between 
bishops  and  presbyters, — the  Universalist, — 
indulging  his  charity,  for  the  honour  of  the 
Almighty,  and  the  comfort  of  the  human 
race, — quoting  it,  to  disprove  the  existence 
of  a  deyil  or  a  hell,  which  he  regards  as  su- 
perstitions, that  not  even  the  light  of  the 
Reformation  was  capable  of  expelling — what 
do  you  say  in  all  these  cases?  You  say  that 
the  individual  has,  indeed,  the  ink,  paper, 
book  and  even  the  wo?-ds  of  Scripture,  but 
that  the  sense  and  true  meaning  are  wanting. 
Then — every  thing  is  wanting.  Where 
then,  I  would  ask,  is  the  security  on  which 
either  they  or  you  can  depend,  unless  the  in- 
terpretation,  as  well  as  the  text,  be  infallible? 
But  this  you  have  given  up — and  methinks 
I  hear  you  solving  the  difficulty  by  the  all- 
potent  interrogatory:  "  in  what  is  your  rule 
better?" 

It  is  better  in  this;  that  according  to  our 
rule,  the  Scripture,  so  far  as  doctrine  and 
morals  are  concerned,  has  but  one  sense  and 
one  meaning,  through  all  the  ages  of  the 
church,  and  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  With 
us,  it  is  a  principle  of  religion  and  of  common 
sense,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  does  not  contra- 
dict himself  either  in  the  Scripture,  or  in  the 
interpretation  of  it;  and  consequently  the 
meaning  is  the  same  noiv,  that  it  was  before 
the  Reformation,  and  up  to  the  days,  when 
the  church  received  the  Divine  Book,  from  the 
hands  of  its  inspired  authors.  But  you  will 
say  we  are  forbidden  to  read  the  Scriptures. 
Indeed,  Sir,  we  are.  not.  But  if  they  were 
liable  to  the  same  abuse,  by  our  rule,  as  they 
are  by  yours,  we  should  not  only  accept,  but 
even  solicit  the  prohibition. 

Here  you  will  say,  or  rather  you  have  said 
in  your  objections,  that  our  rule  is  also  fal- 
lible, "in  as  much  as  I  can  never  be  more 
certain,  in  learning  the  doctrines  of  the 
church,  than  you  are  in  your  interpretation 


37 


of  the  Bible."     To  this  I  reply,  that  I  can— 
and  I  will  show  you  in  what  way.      Accord- 
ing to  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith,    the   doc- 
trines of  Christianity  are  not  ubstruct  specu- 
lations;   they  .are   " positive   truths,  facts," 
unchanged  and  unchangeable,  as  they  came 
from  the  lips  of 'Jesus  Christ  and  his  inspired 
apostles.     But,  being  public  truths,  or  facts, 
they    were    taught    by   the    pastors   of   the 
church,  and   believed   by  the   people   in   all 
countries,   and   in  every  century   since    the 
establishment  of  the  church.     Consequently, 
I   can  verify  them   with  the  same  certainty, 
which  I  have  that  such  an  event  as  the  batile 
of  Waterloo,  the  decapitation  of  Charles  I., 
or  the  Council   of  Nice,   took   place  in  the 
world.     In  neither  case  is  a  divine,  or  per- 
sonal infallibility  necessary.     When  I  say 
that  2  and  4  make  6; — that  Charles  X.  was 
expelled   from   France; — that  Luther  had  a 
misunderstanding  with   Leo  X. ; — that  John 
Huss  was  burned  to  death  at  Constance,  and 
Michael   Servetus  in  Geneva; — I  assert  pro- 
positions "  which    are   infallibly    true.       But 
when  I  take  up   the  words  of  Jesus  Christ, 
»  This  is  my  body,"  and  assert  their  meaning 
to  be  "  this  is  not  my  body;"  the  case  is  en- 
tirely changed.    And  why?    Because,  in  this 
I    utter  a   mere  speculative  proposition — an 
opinion.     Now  according    to  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith,  every  text  of   Scripture,  con- 
nected ivith  doctrine,   must  go  through  such 
an   ordeal   of  speculation:  and   is  it  to  be 
wondered  at,   that,    under  the    guidance  of 
such  a  principle,  men  should  be  divided  oft' 
into  parties  and  opinions;  for,  and  against, 
every  doctrine; — from  the  "  washing  of  feet," 
up   to  the   Saviour's    divinity?     The    situa- 
tion of  a  Catholic  is  very  different: — when 
he  is  a  child,  he  is  instructed  in  the  summary 
of  the  Christian  doctrine,  by  his  parents  and 
his  catechism.     This   is  the  order  of  nature 
as  well  as  of  religion.     When  he  grows  up, 
he   finds   his    immediate  pastor  inculcating, 
and  developing  from    the    pulpit,  the    same 
dogmas  of  belief,  which  were  laid  down  in 
his  catechism.     He  finds  his  pastor  teaching 
the  same  doctrines,  which  are  taught  by  all 
the  other   pastors,    monks,    friars,    doctors, 
cardinals,    bishops,    including    the     Pope — 
and  believed,  by  all  the  Catholic  people  and 
pastors  in   the  whole  universe!     If  he  be  a 
gentleman  of  leisure  and   fortune,  and  fond 
of  travelling,  he  may  visit  France,  Scotland. 
Germany,  Greece,  Spain,   Egypt,   Palestine, 
China,  Italy,  Ireland,  Peru,  Canada,  and  our 
own  Republic — and  in  every  island,  and  on 
every  continent,  in    every    country    under 
heaven,  he  will  find  the  pastors  of  the  Catho- 


lic church  teaching,  and  the  people,  with  the 
pastors,  believing  identically  the  same  doc- 
trines. If  he  be  a  scholar,  the  pages  of  uni- 
versal history  are  before  him.  He  may  con- 
sult antiquity,  and  he  will  find  that  the  doc- 
trines, which  are  noiv  taught  by  the  pastors, 
and  believed  by  both  pastors  and  people, 
were  taught,  and  believed  by  pastors  and  peo- 
ple, in  every  age  since  the  birth  of  Christiani- 
ty. If  he  be  a  linguist  and  a  biblical  critic, 
he  may  consult  the  writings  of  the  fathers, 
and  the  sacred  volume,  either  in  the  original 
text,  or  as  we  have  it,  and  he  will  find  that 
Jesus  Christ  made  the  promises  of  infallibility 
to  the  succession  of  teaching,  and,  not  to  tvri- 
ting,  reading  or  private  interpretation. 

But  what,  you  ask,  if  he  be  a  "  Collier?" 
Why, in  that  case,  his  mother  will  have  taught 
him  the  Lord's  prayer;  the  angelical  saluta- 
tion, commonly  called  the  '•Hail  Mary!"— and 
the  Apostle's  Creed,  in  which  he  says,  "  I 
believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic  church'' — a  pro- 
fession of  faith,  which  includes  every  article, 
believed  (with  more  accuracy  of  conception, 
indeed,  and  distinctness  of  definition)  by  the 
most  learned  doctor  or  bishop  of  the  church. 
But  besides,  his  mother  will  have  taught  him 
to  make  the  sign  of  the  cross,  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  to  signify, 
by  this  sign,  his  faith  in  the  redemption  of 
Christ  on  the  cross;  and  by  the  words,  his 
belief  in  the  adorable  Trinity — and  now,  I 
will  send  him  down  to  the  wines,  at  the  age 
of  ten  years,  furnished  with  a  more  orthodox 
creed,  than  some  of  your  Protestant  ministers 
profess,  after  having  "  worked"  by  the  Pro- 
testant rule  of  faith  for  forty  years.  Neither 
God,  nor  common  sense  requires  him  to  read 
the  101  folios,  which  you  have  been  pleased 
to  compile  for  his  use. 

But  if  he  be  a  Protestant  "  Collier,"  what 
then  ?  He  must  wait  until  he  is  able  to  regu- 
late his  belief  according  to  the  "Bible  alone." 
Of  course,  he  must  read  all — to  make  the  rule 
complete.  But  if  some  passages  seem  to 
contradict  others?  Why,  then  he  has  to 
compare  parallel  passages,  and  explain  one 
text  by  another.  But  he  cannot  read.  Then 
he  must  hear  it  read.  The  first  chapter  of 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  is  not  more  than  half 
finished,  when  he  exclaims,  "  I  am  a  poor 
uneducated  man,  and  I  really  do  not  under- 
stand what  you  read.  Just  tell  me  in  plain 
language,  what  the  book  says."  "  It  says, 
that  Infant  Baptism  is  sufficient,"  replies  my 
learned  opponent. — "No,  retorts  the  Bap- 
tist, you  must  believe  and  be  baptized,  and 
that  by  immersion."— "The  Baptism  of  the 
spirit  is  sufficient,"  says  the  Quaker — "  Why 


38 


Gentlemen,"  cries  out  the  Collier,  "  you  star- 
tle me!     "  You  must  repent  and  avoid  hell," 
continues  the  Methodist.     "There  is  no  hell 
in  the  Bible,"  says  the  Universaiist,   "  it  is 
a  bug-bear  invented  by  priestcraft." — "  You 
must   worship  Christ,"  says   the    Lutheran. 
"If  you  do,"  says  the  Unitarian,  "you  will 
commit  idolatry;  for  Christ  is  nothing  more 
than  a  mere  creature,  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures— the  Father  alone  is  God." — "  Oh  !  how 
you    blaspheme,"  exclaims  the   Swedenbor- 
gian,   "  The  Son  alone  constitutes  the  Deity; 
The  Father" — "Stop,   Gentlemen,"    inter- 
rupts the  Collier;  "pray  whence  did  you  get 
this    book?'' — "  From    the    Saviour    of    the 
world,"  answer   all. — "And   for  what  pur- 
pose?"— "  Why,    as    an    infallible    rule    of 
faith,"  says  Mr.  Breckinridge,    " to  guide  vs 
in  matters  of  religion,  and  to  determine  disputss 
in  the  Church  of  Christ." — "  But  by  what  rule 
doyou  interpret  it?" — "We  are  Protestants," 
answer  all,  "and  the  Bible  alone,  interpreted 
by  each  individual  '  for  himself,'  is  our  rule 
of  faith." — "  Well,  Gentlemen,  I  am,  as  you 
perceive,  a  plain,  uneducated  Collier;  but  if 
God  has  given  me  an  ounce  of   common  un- 
derstanding,  whereby  to   form   a  judgment, 
my   judgment,    from   what   I   have  seen  and 
heard,  is  this — either,  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
a  juggler  ;  or,  that  your  rule  of  faith  is  false; 
— or,   that  I    am    deranged.     You    are   all 
learned  men — and  yuu  will  select  whichever 
of  these   three  alternatives  you   may  prefer. 
Farewell." 

The  case  of  the  Collier  is  one,  that  has  an 
important  bearing  on  the  general  question, 
and  I  am  glad  you  reminded  me  of  it.  It 
furnishes  the  illustration,  and  proves  the 
truth  of  a  remark  I  made  at  the  commence- 
ment of  my  first  letter — that  the  "  tendency 
of  the  Protestant  principle  of  private  inter- 
pretation is  to  sap  the  foundations  of  the 
Christian  religion."  Will  you,  then,  Rev'd 
Sir,  still  sav,  that  admitting  your  rule  to 
work  badly,  "ours  works  worse?" 

Having  disposed  of  the  Collier,  I  must  now 
proceed  to  answer  the  objections,  so  called, 
which  you  have  brought  forward  against  the 
Catholic  rule  of  Faith.  "  Their  name  is  Le- 
gion." If  the  toregoing/acte  and  reasoning  of  I 
this  letter  be  correct,  however,  then  the  lar- 
gest portion  of  the  brood  has  already  been 
"  eaten  up,"  in  the  arguments.  The  rest  are 
founded  on  a  misco7iceplion  of  the  real  state 
of  the  question,  and  disappear  as  soon  as 
they  are  understood. 

1st.  Then,  it  is  a  principle  of  our  belief, 
that  the  dogmas  of  our  Church  were  original- 
ly revealed  by  Christ,  and  taught  by  his  apos- 


tles: that  these  dogmas,  or  articles  of  faith,  and 
morals,  are  the  only  objects  for  the  definition 
and  transmission  of  which,  in  the  "teaching  of 
the  Pastors,"  the  divine  promise  of  infallibili- 
ty is  recorded  in  the  Scripture,  claimed  by  the 
church,  or  necessary  iw  the  preservation  of  re- 
vealed truth.  The  obstinate  rejection  of  one  or 
more  of  these  articles  of  faith — by  following 
private  opinion,  in  opposition  to  the  teaching 
and  belief  of  the  whole  church,  is  what  consti- 
tutes the  crime  of  heresy;  and  the  man  who 
acts  thus,  ceases  to  belong  to  our  communion. 
But  as  the  individual  has  no  right  to  reject  what 
has  been  always,  and  is  everywhere  taught 
and  believed, — so  neither  does  the  church 
claim,  nor  has  she  ever  exercised  the  right  of 
creating,  or  imposing  on  him  the  belief  of  new 
articles  of  faith.  You  mistake,  then,  Rev. 
Sir,  the  language  of  definition  for  the  words  of 
creation,  wheneveryou  say  that  any  of  our  doc- 
trines, began  in  "  such  a  year,"  or  in  "  such 
a  century:"  until  which  time  it  had  been,  as 
you  suppose,  "a  probationer  for  a  seat  in  the 
creed."  However,  in  thus  confounding  the  de- 
finition, with  the  creation,  of  doctrine,  you  on- 
ly follow  the  example  of  a  learned  Protestant, 
and  they  say,  a  very  benevolentand  moral  man 
— I  mean  Dr.  Priestly.  In  his  "  History  of 
early  opinions,"  he  argues,  that  the  Divinity 
of  Christ,  never  dreamt  of,  as  he  supposes, 
in  the  life  of  the  apostles,  "  crept  in"  as  an 
"opinion"  a  short  time  afterwards,  spread 
silently,  and  waxed  strong,  until  it  was 
finally  enacted  into  an  article  of  faith  in  the 
council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325. 

2d.  Besides  doctrines — articles  of  faith — 
and  morals — which  are  immutable,  there  is 
discipline,  for  which  infallibility  is  neither 
claimed  nor  necessary.  Discipline  is  different 
from  doctrine;  it  may  be  adapted  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  different  ages  and  countries. 
It  is  the  mere  livery  of  faith;  and  obvious  as  is 
the  distinction,  we  have  heard  Protestant  Doc- 
tors, if  they  can  detect  a  single  button,  more 
or  less  in  Spain  or  Italy,  than  they  have 
been  accustomed  to  see  in  our  own  country, 
exclaim,  "  Lo !  what  has  become  of  the 
boasted  infallibility?"  Answer — It  is  watch- 
ing, as  a  guardian  angel,  by  the  side  of  those 
"positive  truths,"  "  facts,"  "doctrines," 
which  Jesus  Christ  revealed  to  his  apostles, 
and  commanded  them  lo  teach  to  "  all  na- 
tions," in  "all  days,"  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world. — Discipline  may  vary — doctrine  is 
always  the  same — just  as  a  man  may  change 
his  garment,  without  forfeiting  his  personal 
identity. 

3d.  There  are  besides  doctrine  and  discip- 
line, opinions: — but  they  are  not  about  the 


39 


"Divinity  of  Christ,"  or  the  "real  pre- 
sence.'' They  are  on  questions,  concerning 
which  no  positive  revelation  lias  been  giv- 
en by  the  Saviour,  or  preached  by  the  apos- 
tles. That  these  opinions  have  been  warm- 
ly and  uselessly  discussed  and  agitated,  is 
a  fact  that  1  am  as  willing  to  proclaim,  as 
you  are.  Catholics  may  hold  either  side 
in  any  of  these  opinions,  without  ceas- 
ing to  be  Catholics — precisely  because  they 
are  opinions,  and  not  doctrines,  This  dis- 
tinction is  not  new.  St.  Augustine  referred 
to  it,  when  he  said,  "  In  necessariis  unitas; 
in  non  ?iecesssariis  libcrtas ;  in  omnibus, 
tharitas"  "In  matters  of  faith,  unity;  in 
matters  not  of  faith,  liberty;  in  all  matters, 
charily." 

4th.  There  are  besides  these,  local  customs 
and  habits,  peculiar  to  different  countries  and 
ages. 

Now,  Rev.  Sir,  I  defy  human   ingenuity, 
to  extract  from  all  you  have  written,  one  sin- 
gle genuine  argument  against  the   Catholic 
rule  of  faith.     You  present,  indeed,  in  each 
of  your  letters,  a  crowd  of  assertions  against 
local  customs  and  free  opinions  of  Catholics: 
against  the    discipline    or   doctrines  of  the 
church,  with  which  doctrines  alone  is  the  in- 
fallibility of  the   Catholic  rule  of  faith  con- 
nected;)  and   condemning  our  doctrines  by 
your   confessedly    fallible  principle    of  gui- 
dance, you  arrive  at  the  easy  conclusion,  that 
our  rule  of  faith  is  not  the  true  rule!     Have 
you  attempted   to   show,  that  it  did  corres- 
pond with   your  own  definition  of  the  true 
rule? — That  it  was    not    "established    by 
Christ?" — That  it  is  not  competent  "to  guide 
us  in    matters  of   religion" — or  "to  deter- 
mine disputes    in    the   Church    of  Christ?" 
No!     And  yet,  this   definition  is  the  true 
standard,  by   which  we  have  both  agreed  to 
compare    the    Catholic    and    the    Protestant 
rules;  and  to  determine  which  of  the  two  is 
the  false,  and  which  is  the   true  principle  of 
guidance,  in  ascertaining  the    doctrines    of 
Christ,  as  distinguished  from  the  opinions  of 
men.     This   is   the   standard,  with  which  / 
compared  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith — when 
I   proved  in  my  former  letters,  that  the  one 
has  not  a  single  property,  in   common  with 
the   other.     This   I  proved  in   ten  distinct 
propositions,  supported    by  facts  and    argu- 
ments, to  which,  as  laid  down  in  my  last  let- 
ter, I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader.     He  will 
perceive  that  you  never  take  up  my    argu- 
ment, as  it  has  been  arranged  by  myself — but 
having  moulded  it,  into  a  manageable  shape, 
you  refute  the  creature  of  distortion,  but  leave 


the  difficulty,  unsolved.     Allow  me  to  give 
a  specimen  from  your  last  epistle. 

VI.   VII.   "  There  are  two  methods  of  set- 
tling disputes,   reason  and  force:  you  take 
the   latter;  we  the  former.     There  are  two 
rules,  the   Bible  and   the  Church  of  Rome. 
You  assert  that  the  Bible  has  failed,  and  thus 
make  your   church   better  than  Christ 
and    his  Apostles."      Indeed,    Rev'd   Sir, 
I  should   be   sorry  to   be  guilty  of  either  the 
argument,  or  the  blasphemy.     Let  the  reader 
compare  this,  with  my  own  arguments,  VI. 
and  VII.  and  I  have  no  doubt  but  he  will  ac- 
quit me   of  the   charge.     What   opinion  he 
may  form  of  the  cause  which  required  it,   or 
the  individual  by  whom  it  is  preferred,  it  is 
not  for  me  to  determine.     The  other  weak- 
nesses of  your  attempt  to  reply  to  those  ten 
arguments"  I  shall  leave  for  the  present  unex- 
posed.    For  I  have  not  the  talent  of  "adher- 
ing strictly  to  the  question  under  discussion 
for  the  time   being" — and  yet  broaching,  in 
in  the  same   letter,   every  question,  that  has 
been  agitated  since  the  Reformation.     These 
are  contradictions,  which  your  pen  alone,  it 
seems,  can  reconcile. 

But  a  more  painful  task  is  imposed  on  me, 
in  reference  to  two  or  three  assertions  of 
yours,  in  which  there  is  an  entire  departure 
from  the  truth  of  history  and  of  facts.  Your 
assert  that  opinions  pass  into  articles  of  faith, 
or  doctrine  in  the  Catholic  Church;  and  for 
this  you  quote  the  authority  of  Bellarmine, 
but  I  defy  you  to  quote  ten  lines  before,  and 
ten  lines  after  the  words  "  fere  de  fide," 
without  convicting  yourself  of  what  is  not 
becoming  a  "  minister  of  the  Gospel."  In 
the  same  manner  you  say,  that  Leo  X.  con- 
demned Luther  for  saying:  "It  is  not  in  the 
power  of  the  Church  or  the  Pope  to  constitute 
new  qrticles  of  faith.''''  litis  is  untrue.  Be- 
ing a  mere  historical  fact,  if  it  is  not  untrue, 
you  can  easily  prove  the  contrary.  Another 
assertion  which  is  untrue,  is,  that,  "  as  to  the 
Pope's  supremacy,  there  are  no  less  than 
three  systems  in  our  church."  Now  I  defy 
you,  or  any  one  else,  to  name  a  single  Catho- 
lic in  the  whole  universe,  that  has  publicly 
denied  the  Pope's  supremacy,  without  for- 
feiting   COMMUNION     AND    MEMBERSHIP,     BY 

the  denial.  And  if  you  cannot,  whatjwill 
Protestants  think  of  your  assertion,  that 
there  are  three  systems  (of  doctrine)  in  our 
church  on  that  subject? — and  what  will  they 
think  of  a  cause  defended  by  such — argu- 
ment? When  we  come  to  speak  of  the 
"Vulgate  edition  of  the  Scriptures;"  "the 
Sacraments;"  "the  doctrine  of  intentions;" 
"  the  Apocryphal  books,"  as  you  term  them; 


to 


"the  liberties,  which  you  say  (falsely,  as  I 
hold)  the  church  has  taken  with  the  word  of 
God;"  "the  writings  of  the  Fathers;"  "Pur- 
gatory;" "depriving  the  people  of  the  cup 
in  the  Eucharist;"  "  Indulgences;"  "Prayer 
in  an  unknown  tongue;"  &tc  &c.  &c.  &c. 
/  bind  myself  to  prove,  that  you  have  mis- 
represented these  doctrines  and  asserted 
what  is  not  correct.  In  the  mean  time,  the 
question  is,  the  rule  of  faith.  If  it  be 
true,  as  I  have  shown,  and  as  you  have  ad- 
mitted, that  Protestants  have  nothing,  and, 
by  their  rule  of  private  interpretation,  can 
have  nothing,  more  certain,  than  their  specu- 
lative opinions,  even  for  the  most  sacred  of 
their  own  doctrines;  so,  neither  can  they 
have  any  thing  more  for  the  condemnation 
of  ours.  You  first  condemn  our  doctrines 
by  your  own  opinions,  and  then  condemn 
our  "  rule  of  faith''  by  our  doctrines!  The 
rule  of  faith  is  to  be  judged  and  deter- 
mined not  by  your  opinions  of  either  your 
own  doctrine,  or  ours — but  by  the  definition. 
Is  your  rule  true?  Is  it  infallible?''  Was 
it  established  by  Christ?"  That  is  the 
real  question.  For  if  Christ  revealed  doc- 
trines, and  required  of  men  to  believe  those 
doctrines,  under  pain  of  eternal  condemna- 
tion (Mark  xvi.  16.)  and  yet,  appointed  as  a 
medium  for  ascertaining  what  they  are — a  rule 
by  which,  instead  of  being  preserved  as  doc- 
trines, they  are  resolved  into  a  mass  of  opin- 
ions, as  diversified  and  contradictory  as  those 
which  spring  from  private  interpretation', — 
then  we  need  not  Inquire,  who  is  fight  or  who 
is  wrong.  Every  man  has  a  right  to  his  "opin- 
ion" whether  he  denies  the  real  presence  in  the 
Eucharist,  the  necessity  of  regeneration,  or 
the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  all  revelation 
there  is  not  an  opinion — and  in  all  Protestant- 
ism, there  is  nothing  else,  but  opinion; — you 
have  not  attempted  to  deny  either  of  these 
propositions. 

You  have  quoted  the  ambitious  projects 
and  pretensions,  of  individual  Popes.  Among 
them  there  have  been  a  few  bad,  out  of  a  mul- 
titude of  good,  virtuous  and  holy  men.  The 
fact,  however,  proves  nothing  more  against 
our  rule  of  faith,  than  the  crime  of  Judas  does 
against  the  infallibility  of  Jesus  Christ;  or 
the  incarceration  of  a  wretched  Presbyterian 
clergyman  in  the  State-prison  of  New  York, 
does  against  the  orthodoxy  of  the  "West- 
minster Confession."  You  know  to  whom  I 
allude — and  although  he  belonged  to  your 
communion,  I  would  rather  shed  a  tear  over 


his  misfortunes,  than  stop  to  glean  arguments 
from  the  dark  record  of  his  crimes,  convic- 
tion and  ruin.  I  should  distrust  my  cause,  if 
I  thought  it  required  them. 

Your  pretty  little  story  about  the  "  shep- 
herds at  the  brook,"  would  be  admirable  in 
pastoral  compositions — it  is  so  simple.  But 
in  polemics  it  is  quite  out  of  place.  Would 
you  know  why  ?  Because,  there  the  shep- 
herds, sheep  and  lambs  were  many; — here, 
the  rule  of  faith,  according  to  your  own  defi- 
nition and  agreement,  is  but  one.  And  if  I 
prove  that  it  is  not  that,  which  Protestants 
profess  to  follow — the  reader  can  easily 
draw  the  conclusion. 

But  then  in  Rome,  there  is  one  day  in  the 
year  (not  to  speak  of  kissing  the  Pontifical 
slipper)  for  "  blessing  horses,  asses,  and  oth- 
er beasts !"  In  answer  to  this,  I  have  only  to 
say  that  on  no  day  of  the  year,  would  a  min- 
ister of  the  Gospel  refuse,  if  respectfully  in- 
vited, to  perform  a  similar  operation,  over  a 
piece  of  good  beef,  such  as  may  always 
be  found  in  our  Philadelphia  markets.  I  see 
no  difference,  except  that  in  this  case  the 
"beast"  happens  to  be  dead;  and  that  the 
maxim  has  it  "nil  nisi  bonum  de  mortuis." 
But,  Rev.  Sir,  the  courtesies  of  society  regard 
us  both  as  clergymen,  notwithstanding  your 
mutilated  exordium,"  Sir" — and  as  clergymen 
it  does  not  become  us  to  treat  so  grave  a  sub- 
ject, with  I e v i ty  or  ridicule.  Is  the  Protes- 
tant principle  the  true  rule  of  Christian  faith, 
or  is  it  not  the  rule,  exclusively  of  sectarian 
opinion?  That  is  the  real  question — on  the 
proper  solution  of  which,  may  depend  the  sal- 
vation of  immortal  souls,  for  whom  Christ 
died. — If  there  are  under  heaven, in  the  whole 
volume  of  reason  and  revelation,  arguments 
to  prove,  that  the  "  Bible  alone,  interpreted 
by  each  individual  for  himself,"  is  "  the.  in- 
fallible ride  of  faith" — that  "  the  Bible  alone, 
interpreted  by  each  individual  for  himself," 
is  "the  rule  established  by  Christ" — "  to  guide 
us  in  matters  of  religion  and  to  determine 
disputes  in  his  church" — I  again  entreat  you 
to  furnish  them.  If  no  such  arguments  can 
be  furnished,  then  is  your  rule  of  faith  of 
human  invention,  and  not  of  Christ's  appoint- 
ment. The  "definition"  constitutes  themark 
of  the  Divine  "  Shepherd"  stamped  upon  the 
true  rule,  under  the  guidance  of  which,  there  is 
but  "one  sheepfold,'  his  disciples  being  "one" 
in  doctrine,  as  "  He  and  the  Father  are  one," 
in  nature  and  purpose.     Yours,  &c. 

Jno.  Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY N°.  6. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


New  York,  5th  March,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

Rev.   Sir,— You  rise  from    your   prostra- 
tion with  the  air  of  victory.     It  is  however, 
I  think,  a  little  abatement  to  your  chivalry, 
that  you  should  still  cry  out  against  my  ar- 
guments, and  yet  meet  them,  in  chief  part, 
with  reiterated  complaints  of  my  departure 
from  "the  Rules,"  and  clamorous  demands 
to  keep  to  the  question.     When  you  propo- 
sed to  undertake  a  discussion  with  me,  I  re- 
quested a  reply  to  my  first  printed  letter. 
You  declined.     I    proposed  a  public,    oral 
discussion.     You  declined.     After  much  ne- 
gotiation, the  present  channel  was    agreed 
on.     The  rules  were,   very  much,  of  your 
own  defining;  you  insisted  that  we  should 
first  discuss  the  rule  of  faith,  and  you  must 
begin.     I  proposed  that  after  examining  the 
rufe  of  faith,  we   should   take  this  for  the 
point  of  debate,  "Is  the  religion  of  Roman 
Catholics  the  religion  of  Christ?"     You  still 
declined,  and  we  must  change  it  to  this,  "Is 
m  the   religion   of   Protestants  the    religion   of 
I  Christ?"     And  now,  after  all  th*se  conces- 
1  sions,  you  claim  to  interpret  these  rules,  and 
\even  to  determine  how  I  shall  conduct  my 
■argument;    and   while   the   nerves  of   your 
■cause  are  cracking   under  the   pressure   of 
/truth,  gravely  charge  me  with  violating  rules 
§  and  passing  bv  the  question !     I  am  weary  of 
f    this   unmanly   strife  of   words,  and    "vain 
jangling"  about  modes  and  forms.     Once  for 
ally  {therefore,  let  me  settle  this  matter.     If 
the  reader  will  refer    to   "the   rules,"    at 
the  head   of  this   letter,    he    will    perceive 
that  the  3d  assigns  the  "rule  of  faith"  as 
the   first   subject    of  discussion,    and    with 
the  following  amplitude,  "after  giving  their 
views  of  the  rule  of  faith,"  fyc.     Does  not  this 
bring  up  the  whole  subject   of  the  rule  of 
faith  ?     The  4th   rule  requires  us,  "  to  ad- 
'here  strictly  to  the  subject  of  discussion  for 
the  time  being — and  to  admit  no  second  ques- 
tion," #c.  Sfc.    Now  I  ask,  have  I  not  dis- 
cussed, throughout,  one  and  the  same  ques- 
tion, viz.,   the  rule  of  faith  ?— Both   in  my 
first  and  second  letters,  (Nos.  2  and  4.)  I  re- 
plied to  all  your  objections.    But  I  did  not 


stop  there.     I  went  on  to  expose  your  rule. 
By  a  great  number  of  yet  unanswered  argu- 
ments, I  proved  its  utter  fallibility.     I  have 
shown,  by  the  confession  of  your  own  writers, 
that  you  are  compelled  to  use  private  inter- 
pretation, by  fallible  men,  in  order  to  find 
out  from  the   Bible  your  church  and   your 
rule  :  I  have  exposed  your  judge  of  contro- 
versies, as  one  whom  you  could  not  agree  on 
among  yourselves,  and  who  could  not  possi- 
bly be  a  judge,  from  the  nature  of  the  case  : 
I  have  shown  that  your  church  has  varied  in 
doctrine  from  age  to  age,   and  therefore  has 
not  an  infallible  judge  in  her,  as  she  pretends 
to  have:  I  have  shown  that  the  direct  tendency 
of  your  system  was  to  corrupt  the  morals  of  the 
people  and  the  worship  of  God,   and   there- 
fore your  rule  was  entirely  fallible,  and  even 
o-reatly  evil  :  I  have  shown  that  your  rule 
usurps  the  prerogative  of  God,   and  that  it 
violates  the  testimony  of  the  senses  :  that  it 
was  not  only  fallible,  but  entirely  uncertain  : 
that  it  requires  ignorance  and   implicit  faith 
as  its  foundation  in  the  minds  of  men  :  that 
it  is  incompatible,  not  only  with   personal, 
but  with  civil  liberty:  that  under  the  guid- 
ance of  your  rule,  the  Bible  has  been  shut 
against   mankind  :    that  the  commandments 
have  been  mutilated,  additions  made  to  the 
word  of  God,  and  that  new  articles,  and  new 
sacraments  have  been  added,  under  the  au- 
thority of  your  rule:  that  even    "the  Fa- 
thers," the  professed  fountain  of  evidence  in 
your  behalf,   have   been   purged   of  matter 
which  went   against  you  :  and   that  by  the 
authority  of  the   Pope,  writers  in  your  com- 
munion of  a  later  day,  have  been  abridged, 
enlarged,  or  changed,  to  fit  them  to  be  wit- 
nesses to  the  Roman  Catholic  Rule.     These 
things  have  been  clearly  shown,  as  [may  be 
seen  by  a  reference  to  the  letters  themselves. 
I  ask  do  they  not  bear  directly  on  the  ques- 
tion ?     Your  chief  reply  to  them  as  yet,  is 
that  they  violate  the  rules !     When  you  at- 
tempt a  rejoinder,  the  public  will  judge  both 
of  their  fitness  and  their  force. 

Before  I  enter  on  the  examination  of  your 
reasoning,  it  is  proper  here  to  meet  and  re- 
pel a  paragraph  near  the  close  of  your  letter, 


42 


viz.  "  But  a  more  painful  task  is  imposed 
on  me,  in  reference  to  two  or  three  assertions 
of  yours,  in  which  there  is  an  entire  depar- 
ture from  the  truth  of  history  and  of  facts. — 
You  assert  that  opinions  pass  into  articles  of 
faith  or  doctrine  in  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
for  this  you  quote  the  authority  of  Bellar- 
mine  ;  but  I  defy  you  to  quote  ten  lines  be- 
fore and  ten  lines  after,  the  words  '  fere  de 
fide,'  without  convicting  yourself  of  what 
is  not  becoming  '  a  minister  of  the  Gospel.'  " 
Now  I  had  said  in  my  letter,  "your  church 
has  added  to  the  word  of  God  new  articles 
of  faith,  and  even  new  sacraments  to  the  in- 
stitutions of  Jesus  Christ."  1  appealed  for 
proof  to  various  writers,  and  to  the  Bull  of 
Pope  Pius  IV.  You  say  nothing  of  these 
proofs.  I  then  added,  "  Bellarmine  ive  sup- 
pose means  this  when  he  says  of  one  article, 
'fere  de  fide,'  almost  a  matter  of  faith." 
Now  if,  instead  of  "slurring  the  notes," 
you  had  quoted  from  Bellarmine  ten  lines 
"before  and  ten  lines  after"  the  offensive 
passage,  it  would  have  come  with  a  better 
grace  than  a  Parthian  arrow  shot  while  in 
flight.  But  you  proceed  to  remark,  "  In  the 
same  manner  you  say  that  Leo  X.  condemn- 
ed Luther  for  saying:  It  is  not  in  the  power 
of  the  church  or  the  Pope  to  constitute  new 
articles  of  faith. —  This  is  untrue.  Being  a 
mere  historical  fact,  if  it  is  not  untrue,  you 
can  easily  prove  the  contrary."  This  is 
strong  language!  Yet  you  put  the  subject  to 
a  fair  issue;  let  us  try  it — it  is  done  in  few 
words.  The  bull  of  Leo  X.  dated  June 
15th,  1520,  levelled  at  Luther  by  name,  con- 
tains forty-one  pretended  heresies,  which 
are  extracted  from  his  writings  and  solemnly 
condemned — his  books  are  doomed  to  the 
flames — and  he  allowed  sixty  days  to  recant, 
or  meet  the  thunders  of  the  Vatican.  The 
27th  article,  for  which  Luther  is  anathema- 
tized for  holding,  is  as  follows;  "Certum 
est  in  manu  Ecclesiae  aut  Papee  prorsus  non 
esse  stutuere  articulos  fidei"  Which  is,  word 
for  word,  what  I  said  before,  viz:  "  //  is  cer- 
tain it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  Pope  or 
church,  to  ordain,  or  decree  articles  of  faith." 
He  denounces  this  and  the  other  forty  arti- 
cles as  "pestiferous,"  "scandalous,"  "se- 
ductive errors." — And  yet  you  assert  that 
"it  is  untrue  /"—My  proof  then,  is  fully 
fortified.  I  would  willingly  explain  your 
mistake  by  referring  it  to  ignorance — and 
your  being  startled  at  the  statement  shows 
the  monstrous  nature  of  the  doctrine.  But 
how  shall  I  account  for  your  indecorum; 
especially  after  convicting  you  of  such  an 
error  ? 


I  must  however  go  into  the  defence  of  yet 
another  "  assertion,"  as  you  style  it.  "  Ano- 
ther assertion  which  is  not  true  is  that  as  to 
the  Pope's  supremacy — there  are  no  less  than 
three  systems  in  our  (the  Roman  Catholic) 
church."  I  gave  you  proof  of  this  when  it 
was  stated;  but  I  will  subjoin  more.  The 
council  of  Basle,  A.  D.  ]439  (see  Caranza  's 
summa  conciliorurn,  33d,  sessions,  page  645) 
decreed  as  follows:  "  That  according  to  the 
council  of  Constance,  it  is  a  true  article  of 
the  Catholic  faith,  that  a  Council  is  above 
a  Pope,  and  that  whoever  pertinaciously  re- 
jects this  trutfi,  is  to  be  condemned  as  a  here- 
tic." Here,  besides  its  own  testimony,  that 
of  the  Council  of  Constance  is  likewise  con- 
veyed. This  is  one  system.  It  gives  to  the 
Pope  a  rank  not  only  unequal  in  degree,  but 
dissimilar  in  kind  from  the  second  system, 
which  is  called  Italian,  from  its  being  the 
prevailing  one  at  Rome,  as  the  former  is  call- 
ed Gallican,  from  its  prevalence  in  France. 
The  Italian  school  or  second  system  hold  to 
the  Pope's  unlimited  sovereignty  over  the 
church;  and  make  him  officially  infallible, 
and  virtually  the  church.  The  Council  of 
Florence,  5th  Lateran  and  Trent  make  the 
Pope  superior  to  general  Councils.  This  you 
will  hardly  deny — if  so,  I  have  proof  at  hand. 
Johannes  Devotus  (Vol.  1.  Book  1.  Tit.  3. 
sec.  1.)  on  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  has 
this  caption:  "The  power  of  the  Pope  is 
episcopal,  metropolitan,  patriarchal  and 
temporal.  His  decisions/rom  the  chair  are 
infallible. "  Thethird  system  deifies  the  Pope. 
According  to  Gregory  II.  "the  whole  West- 
ern nations  reckoned  Peter aterrestrial  God."i 
(Labb.  8.  G66.)  We  are  told  that  Marcellus^j 
in  the  Lateran  Council,  called  Julius,  " 
God  on  earth,"  and  without  rebuke  from  thel 
Council.  Bellarmineon  Authority  ofCouncils, 
Book  2.  c.  17 — says:  "  all  the  names  which 
are  given  in  the  Scriptures  to  Christ,  even 
these  same  names  are  given  to  the  Pope — 
whence  it  appears  that  he  is  superior  to  the 
church."  In  Gratian's  Decretals,  1.  p.  Dis, 
96.  Pope  Nicholas  to  Michael,  7th  chap, 
the  Pope  says,  He  is  a  God,  and  therefore  men 
cannot  judge  him.  I  might  multiply  these 
proofs  at  pleasure.  Here  then  are  the  said 
three  systems  distinctly  made  out.  How  you 
can  then  so  positively  say  it  "  is  not  true," 
our  fellow  citizens  must  judge. 

We  are  now  come  to  quite  an  era  in  this 
discussion,  viz:  the  first  defence  of  your  rule 
of  faith!  Though  it  be  in  the  6th  letter  of 
the  controversy,  and  its  appearance  now  is 
only  a  peep  at  us  from  behind  the  clouds,  yet 
we  welcome  its  approach.     Our  rule  of  faith, 


13 


you  say,  is  laid  down  in  the  Apostles  Creed. 
"  /believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  This 
rule,  you    perceive,    does   not  exclude,    but 
comprises  the  belief  of  the  Holy  Scriptures." 
It    may    be  said    to  be   in  substance    this, 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church  is  the  living  infal- 
lible interpreter  of  Scripture.     Now  it  will 
be  borne  in  mind  that  before  any  church  can 
interpret,  she  must  know  what  is  to  be  inter- 
preted.    What  do  you  mean  then   by   "the 
Holy   Scriptures?"     The  Council   of  Trent 
has  settled  this  question  for  you,   infallibly, 
(as  you  say,)  "  All  the   books   contained 
in  the  old  Vulgate  Latin  Edition  are  sa- 
cred and  canonical."     (Decree  ol  theCoun. 
Trent,  4  sess.)     Then  besides  our  Bible  the 
Itoman  Catholic  Scriptures  include  a  number 
of  books  viz.   1  and  2  Esdras,  Tobit,  Judith, 
Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  "Baruch,  and  1  and  2 
Maccabees.     These  make  a  large  volume  of 
themselves.      The   Jews,    our   Lord   Jesus, 
the  Apostles  and  early  Fathers,  unite  to  ex- 
clude these  from  the  canon.     You  ought  then 
to  have  proved  them  canonical,    or  dropped 
them  from  the  Scriptures,  as   a  preliminary 
step.     The   former  you  do  not  attempt;  the 
latter  were  heresy  in  you. — When  you  say 
then  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  comprised 
in  your  rule,  you  deceive  the  reader, — since 
by  "  Holy  Scriptures"   he  means  one   thing 
and  you  quite  another  thing. — Again,  in  de- 
fining your  rule,  you  omit  two  other  very  ma- 
terial features  which  are  strongly  brought  to 
view    by    the    Council   of  Trent,   (4   Sess.) 
«    1.   They  say  divine   truth   is   contained  both 
in   the   written   books   and   "in  unwritten 
tradition."     2.  Every  Roman  Catholic  of 
'every  grade,  binds  himself  solemnly  as   fol- 
lows, "I   will  never  take  or  interpret  them, 
J  (the  sacred   Scriptures,)   otherwise  than  ac- 
I  cording  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fa- 
'    thers."    (See  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.)    Now 
it  is  apparent  from  these  facts,  that  what  you 
call  divine   truth  is  quite  another  thing  from 
the  Bible;  and  it  is  equally  clear  that  your 
church  is  restricted  by  her  own  decrees,   to 
interpret  this  compound  of  Bible,  Apocrypha 
and    unwritten   tradition,    according   to  the 
unanimous  consent  of  "the   Fathers."     At 
this  point,  we  see  then   either  that  "  the  fa- 
thers" were  infallible  and  also  unanimous  in 
their   interpretations  of    Scripture,    or    else 
your  church  receives  her  creed  from  fallible 
men,   and  can  have  no  uniformity  in  her  doc- 
trines.    But  "the  Fathers"   you   will   own, 
were  fallible;  and  that  they  were  far  from 
unanimous,     I    will    presently    unite    with 
your  Bellarmine  and  others,  to  prove.     Let 
me  here  say,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  rule, 


though  withheld  by  you,  is  spread  at  large 
upon  the  records  of  your  church,  and  from 
it  I  draw  these  definitions.  If  I  err  in  them, 
the  task  of  confutation  is  easy. 

Having  laid  down  your  rule  of  faith,  you 
proceed   to  prove  that  it  was  established  by 
Christ,  by  an  appeal  to  the  Apostolical  com- 
mission given  Matt,  xxviii  17-20.   The  reader 
will  please  refer  to  it.  Allow  me  here  to  put  by 
the  side  of  this,  those  passages  which,  added 
to  it,  make  out  the  commission  in  full.   "  And 
these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe; 
in  my  name  shall   they  cast  out  devils;  they 
shall" speak  with  new  tongues."    "They  shall 
take    up   serpents;    and  if  they    drink    any 
deadly  thing,  it  shall   not  hurt   them  ;  they 
shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick,    and  they  shall 
recover."  Mark  xvi.  17,  18.      "  And  ye  are 
witnesses  of  these  things." — "And  behold 
I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you; 
but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem   until 
ye  be  endued    with    power  from    on  high." 
Luke  xxiv.  48,  49.     "  But  ye  shall  receive 
power   after  that  the   Holy  Ghost  is   come 
upon  you;  and  ye   shall  be   witnesses  unto 
me,  both  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  all  Judea,  and 
in  Samaria,  and  unto  the   uttermost  parts  of 
the  earth." — Acts  i.    8. 

Now  we  freely  giant  that  the  above  pas- 
sages confer  a  commission  on  the  Apostles; 
and  that  they  were  divinely  endowed,  for  the 
discharge  of  the  great  work  which  was  given 
them  to  do.     But  on  these  texts  you  found 
the  following  reasoning:  "  In  the  commission 
referred  to  above,  all  nations  and  all  days  even 
to  the  end  of  the  world  are  included.     There- 
fore the  fulfilment  of  the  Saviour's  injunc- 
tion, required  that  the  Apostles  should  have 
successors     in    the     ministry    of  teaching?'' 
"  Then  it  is  not  by  exercising  an  unfounded 
prerogative,  but  in  simple  obedience  to  the  in- 
junction of  Jesus  Christ,  that  Catholics  heark- 
en to  the  voice  of  the  church  and  the  teaching 
of  its  Pastors."     The  sum  of  it  is    this:   the 
Apostles  had  certain  divine  endowments  for 
their  work;  Christ  intended  the  Apostles  to 
have  successors  to  the  end  of  time;  therefore 
their  successors  must  have  the  same  endow- 
ments.    Now  what  was  it  that  constituted  an 
Apostle?  (1.)  No  man  could  be  an  Apostle 
who  had  not  been  "  an  eye  witness'' 'to  Christ's 
person,    and   works,    (see  Luke   i.  2.  and  2 
Peter  i.   16.)  Paul  says,    1  Corinthians   ix. 
1.    "  Am    I  not  an   Apostle?     Have  I  not 
seen  the  Lord?"     (See  Acts  i.  21—22  and 
x.  41.)     (2.)  An   Apostle   must  receive    his 
mission  directly  from    Christ,   not   by   any 
human  ordination.     For  this  reason,  Christ 
appeared  to  Paul  visibly  on  his  way  to  Da- 


44 


mascus,  and  called  him  to  the  work  of  an 
Apostle;  and  this  is  what  Paul  means  when 
he  says,  "Last  of  all  he  (Christ)  was  seen 
of  me,   as   of  one   born   out  of  due   time." 
1  Cor.  xv.  8.      (3.)  Every   Apostle  had  mi- 
raculous   and    extraordinary    endowments : 
such  as  inspiration,    making  him  infallible; 
the  gift  of  tongues;  power  to  work  miracles, 
(Markxvi.  17,  18.)  and  to  impart  that  power 
to  others.   (2  Cor.  xii.    12.)     The   apostles 
were  told,  (Acts  i.  8.)   to  wait  at  Jerusalem 
for  these  supernatural  gifts;  and  on  the  day 
of    Pentecost    they    were   accordingly    fur- 
nished from  on  high,  by  the  miraculous  and 
extraordinary  effusions  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
By  these  endowments,  they  were  enabled  to 
speak  at  once  many  languages;  to  write  in- 
spired books;  to  cast  out  devils,  raise  the 
dead,  &c.     (4.)  Every  Apostle,  as  the  name 
(one  sent)  signifies  and  as  the  terms  of  the 
commission  plainly  show,  was  to  go  all  abroad, 
with  plenary  authority;  not  to  be  stationary; 
or  make  his  permanent  seat  any  where,  exclu- 
sively. Now  it  is  obvious  that  the  Apostles  had 
no  successors  in  these  respects.     It  was  im- 
possible after  the  generation,  in  which  Christ 
lived,  had  passed  away,   that  the  Apostles 
could  have  such  successors;  for  it  was  neces- 
sary to  their  office  and  work  to  have  seen  the 
Lord.     But  this  the  second  generation  could 
not  have  done.     It  is  plain  also  that  such  a 
succession  was  never  designed  by  our  Lord, 
or  attempted  by  the  Christians  of  the  next 
age.     It  is  true  Judas  had  a  successor;   but 
it  was  before  the  Apostles  were  fully  endued 
by  the  Spirit  and   sent  forth.     And  if   any 
were  to  have  successors,  why  not  all,  as  well 
as  one?     Why  not  James  at  Jerusalem,  John 
at  Ephesus,  and  Paul  at  Antioch,  as  well  as 
Peter   at   Rome?      Why   Rome  more    than 
eleven  other  cities?     Will  not  all  the  texts 
you  have  quoted,  apply  as  well  to  James  at 
Jerusalem  as  to  Peter  at  Rome?     Had  he  not 
the  promise  of  the  same  Holy  Spirit  to  guide 
him  as  Peter?    Is  not  John  called  "a  pillar'' 
(Gal.  ii.  9.)  as  well  as  Peter?     Why  do  you 
single   out  infallibility  for   your  succession, 
and  leave  out  all  other  qualifications?     It  is 
curious  to  remark  howr  you  omit  even  a  refe- 
rence to  Mark  xvi.  17,  18,  where  the  gift  of 
miracles  is  so  inseparably  united  to  the  office 
of  an  Apostle.     You  must  admit  then,  that 
there  are  some  respects  in  which  the  Apostles 
had  no  successors.     But  if  some  things  are 
wanting,  your  argument  is  vain.      If  some 
things  are  wanting,  may  not  one  of  them  be 
infallibility?     And   if  all  the  ot her  superhu- 
man endowments  ceased,  why  should  infalli- 
bility continue?     The  conclusion  is  irresisti- 


ble, that  the  Apostles  had  no  successors,  en« 
dued  with  extraordinary  powers  of  any  kind; 
and  therefore  the  Roman  Catholic  rule  of 
faith  was  not  established  by  Christ. 

But  yet  we  hold  to  a  commission  still 
standing  and  binding,  which  reaches  to  the 
close  of  time:  we  believe  in  a  visible  catho- 
lic (not  Roman)  church,  to  which  appertain 
the  ministry,  the  oracles,  and  ordinances  of 
God;  which  is  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the 
world — to  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised 
as  an  abiding  gift;  against  which  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail;  and  which  is  at  last  to 
fill  the  world.  Of  this  church,  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  only  head;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  speak- 
ing in  the  Bible,  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith. 

You  next  introduce  some  of  "the  Fathers" 
to  prove  that  the  texts  quoted  by  you  were 
understood  in  their  days,  as  you  interpret 
them.  I  would  here  say  that  "  The  Fathers" 
have  a  hard  lot  in  your  church.  You  treat 
them  as  some  people  do  their  "  children,"  or 
as  the  Hindoos  do  their  idol-gods ;  they 
honour  them  when  they  serve  their  purpose; 
and  whip  them  when  they  do  not.  I  have 
already  shown  the  corrections  to  which  they 
have  sometimes  been  subjected,  to  square 
them  to  the  uses  of  the  church.  Now  let 
me  bring  some  proofs  directly  to  our  pur- 
pose. Chrysostom,  (who  lived  A.  D.  398.) 
says,  "  the  church  is  known,  (tanlummodo.) 
only  by  the  Scriptures.v  (Homil.  49  in 
Matt.)  Bellarmine  however  says  of  this 
passage,  "  It  is  probable  the  author  was  a 
Catholic,  but  it  seems  to  be  none  of  Chry- 
sostom"1 s."—  (De  Scriptis  Ecc's.  A.  D.  398.) 
Augustine,  who  lived  A. D.  395.  says,  ''Thou 
art  Peter,  and  upon  the  rock,  which  thou, 
hast  confessed,  upon  this  rock,  which  thou, 
hast  known,  saying,  Thou  art  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God,  will  I  build  my 
church;  I  will  build  thee  upon  me,  not  me 
upon  thee."  (De  verb.  Domin.  Serin.  13.) 
Yet  Stapleton  says  of  it,  "it  was  a  human  er- 
ror caused  by  the  diversity  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  tongue  which  either  he  was  ignorant  of, 
or  marked  not."  (Princip.  doct.  lib.  6.  c.  3.) 
But  I  will  pass  to  examine  an  authority  quot- 
ed by  yourself,  from  Tertullian  in  his  book 
of  Prescriptions,  &c.  &c.  From  the  manner 
in  which  you  extract  it,  the  author  is  made 
to  testify,  that  Rome  is  the  great  centre  and 
head,  where  the  "  succession"  from  the 
Apostles  has  its  seat ;  and  where  the  "Hap- 
py Church,''  reigns  in  undisturbed  suprema- 
cy. Your  quotation  runs  thus:  "If  you  live 
near  Italy,  you  see  before  your  eyes  the  Ro- 
man church.     Happy  church!  to  which  the 


45 


Apostles  left  the  inheritance  of  doctrines 
with  their  blood!  where  Peter  was  crucified 
like  his  master,  where  Paul  was  beheaded 
like  the  Baptist." — But  let  us  see  his  entire, 
ungarbled  statement:  "Survey  the  apostoli- 
cal churches,  in  which  the  very  chairs  of  the 
Apostles  still  preside  over  their  stations,  in 
which  their  own  letters  are  recited,  uttering 
the  voice  and  representing  the  presence  of 
each  of  them.  Is  Achaia  nearest  to  thee  ? 
Thou  hast  Corinth.  If  thou  art  not  far  from 
Macedonia,  thou  hast  the  Phillipians  and  the 
Thessalonians.  If  thou  canst  go  to  Asia, 
thou  hast  Ephesus;  but  if  thou  art  near  Italy, 
thou  hast  Rome,  whence  to  us  also  authority 
is  near  at  hand."  (Prescriptions  against  He- 
retics.) And  now,  how  very  different  is  the 
passage  and  the  meaning!  How  directly 
against  Peter's  supremacy  and  the  exclusive 
claims  of  Rome!  How  extraordinary  the 
liberty  which  you  take  with  the  author  and 
with  historical  evidence!  It  was  thus  a  man 
once  proved  from  the  14th  Psalm  that  there 
is  no  God— "The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart, 
there  is  no  God,"  is  the  entire  verse.  But 
dropping  the  first  part  of  the  sentence,  it  runs 
thus,  "There  is  no  God." 

You  ask  in  the  second  place,  "  Is  the  rule 
infallible?"  and  infer  that  it  is,  since  it  is 
established  by  Christ.  I  grant  you  that  a 
rule  established  by  Christ,  is  infallible.  But 
as  I  have  proved  that  Christ  did  not  estab- 
lish your  rule,  your  conclusion  falls  to  the 
ground.  But  let  us  proceed.  It  is  not  self- 
evident  that  your  church  is  infallible,  or  your 
rule  the  true  one.  By  what  process  then  do 
you  apply  these  texts  to  the  proof  of  your 
rule?  The  process,  I  answer,  of  private  in- 
terpretation. Then  I  would  ask,  is  your 
interpretation  fallible  or  infallible  ?  If  fal- 
lible, where  is  the  right  or  safety  of  your  in- 
terpretation, especially  when  the  point  in 
question  is  no  less  than  that  on  which  all 
others  depend,  viz.  where  shall  we  go  for  an 
infallible  rule?  This  is  the  more  surprising, 
as  you  charge  upon  the  use  of  private  judg- 
ment all  the  evils  of  heresy  and  schism, 
which  have  in  every  age  rent  the  church  of 
Christ — perverted  the  word  of  God — and 
ruined  the  souls  of  men.  Do  you  refer  me 
to  your  infallible  Church  ?  But  we  are  in- 
quiring after  the  proofs  of  her  infallibility. 
Then  does  she  refer  me  to  Scripture  passages 
for  proof?  But  how  can  I  be  certain  that 
her  interpretation  is  correct?  Her  infallibil- 
ity does  not  assure  me,  for  she  has  not  yet 
proved  her  infallibility;  and  if  she  can  prove 
her  infallibility  in  this  way,  then  private 
judgment  is  sufficient  to  settle  the  undoubted 


meaning  of  a  great  body  of  scripture-pas- 
sages, and  terminate  the  grand  controversy, 
on  which  all  others  depend.  And  what  then 
becomes  of  the  church  of  Rome's  complaint 
of  the  great  obscurity  of  Scripture,  which 
is  affirmed  to  render  her  aid  so  indispens- 
able? And  what  must  we  think  of  her  out- 
cries against  the  supposed  arrogance  of  pre- 
tending to  the  exercise  of  free  inquiry,  and 
of  judging  of  the  Scriptures  for  ourselves, 
when,  without  such  an  exercise  and  such  a 
power  of  judging,  it  is  found  impossible  to 
obtain  the  least  proof  or  presumption  of  her 
pretended  infallibility?  Some  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture then,  the  church  of  Rome  herself  must 
allow,  are  capable  of  being  understood  with- 
out her  aid.  Those  declarations  on  which 
she  rests  her  claim  to  implicit  submission  and 
obedience,  she  must  allow  to  be  sufficiently 
plain  and  intelligible  to  bind  the  conscience 
of  every  member  of  her  communion,  who  is 
prepared  to  give  a  reason  for  his  being  a 
Catholic:  and  as  an  entire  agreement  with 
the  dogmas  of  the  church  is  all  the  faith 
which  she  requires,  in  order  to  the  salvation 
of  her  members,  she  must  acknowledge,  as 
well  as  ourselves,  that  the  Scripture  contains 
a  rule  ot  faith  sufficient  for  the  purpose  of 
salvation.  The  only  difference  is,  that  in  our 
opinion,  the  scriptures  clearly  unfold  a  system 
of  saving  truth;  while  in  that  of  the  (Roman) 
Catholics  they  are  obscure  in  every  point, 
except  the  few  passages  which  direct  us  to  the 
church,  (the  only  authentic  and  immediate 
source  of  saving  knowledge.)"  "Her  treat- 
ment of  Scripture,  almost  reminds  us  of  the 
fabulous  history  of  'Jupiter,  who  ascended 
to  supreme  power  by  the  mutilation  and  ban- 
ishment of  his  father.'  "     Robert  Hall. 

We  see  then  that  your  rule  utterly  fails  as 
to  the  proof  of  itself.  In  the  next  place  it 
ivholly  fails  in  its  application.  For  either  the 
Pope  is  infallible;  or  the  council;  or  both  unit- 
ed; or  the  universal  church.  It  seems  not  to 
be  agreed  among  yourselves  where  infallibili- 
ty is  lodged  and  therefore  even  at  the  thresh- 
old, a  great  difficulty  arises.  If  the  univer- 
sal church  be  the  seat,  this  is  plainly  useless, 
for  you  can  never  come  at  its  decisions.  If 
the  Pope,  be  so,  the  world  must  go  to  Rome; 
or  die  in  darkness.  If  a  Pope,  and  a  gene- 
ral Council  united  make  the  infallible  judge, 
(which  is  not  self-evident,  and  must  there- 
fore be  proved,)  then  as  Roman  Catholics 
commonly  believe,  you  have  the  absurdity, 
that  two  fullibles  make  an  infallible.  Two 
negatives  may  make  an  affirmative  in  Gram- 
mar; but  it  will  not  do  so  in  religion — for  if 
you  Add  fallible  to  fallible  forever,  the  sum  is 


46 


fallible  still.  But  if  the  infallible  judge, 
(which  is  your  rule  of  faith,)  be  found  in  the 
Pope  and  Council  united,  still  it  is  out  of 
the  reach  of  the  people.  Such  a  council  has 
not  been  held  for  two  hundred  and  seventy 
years  !  But  to  answer  any  end,  it  ought  to 
hold  a  constant  session. — And  not  only  so, 
but  it  ought  to  be  omnipresent — for  other- 
wise the  millions  of  the  people,  which  you 
speak  of,  in  "France,  Scotland,  Germany, 
Greece,  Spain,  Egypt,  Palestine,  China, 
Italy,  Ireland,  Peru,  Canada,  our  own  Re- 
public, and  in  every  Island,  and  on  every 
Continent,  and  in  every  country  under  hea- 
ven"— cannot  consult  this  oracle.  Jill  these 
millions  are  concerned  to  know  its  declara- 
tions; yet  cannot;  and  ruin  ensues.  For 
there  are  only  two  possible  ways  to  reach 
the  mass  of  men,  viz.,  either  by  living-teach- 
ers, or  by  the  decrees  of  councils.  But  both 
these  methods  are  liable  to  error;  you  are  there- 
fore without  a  rule.  No  teacher  is  infallible 
as  you  allow  ;  the  decrees  of  the  councils 
which  few  possess  and  fewer  read,  are  at 
least  as  obscure  as  the  Bible.  The  pri- 
vate interpretation  of  the  Bible  you  call 
"  the  grand  heresy  of  the  Reformation;'''' 
surely  then  the  private  interpretation  of  de- 
crees, is  not  less  an  evil !  It  appears  then, 
that  your  boasted  infallible  rule  is  utterly  in- 
applicable; and  while  you  decry  the  Bible,  in 
the  hands  of  the  people,  as  the  rule  of  faith, 
you  have  no  substitute;  and  your  cause  is 
ruined. 

I  remark  next,  that  your  reasoning  as  to 
an  infallible  rule  of  fatth,  if  well  founded, 
leads  us  to  reject  every  system  that  does  not 
make  all  men  perfect.  For  you  a«ree  that 
Christ  has  established  an  infallible  rule  to 
"guide  us  in  matters  of  religion."  as  well  as 
"  settle  disputes^  in  his  church.  You  ar- 
gue that  a  rule  which  does  not  "settle  dis- 
putes" as  to  doctrine,  is  fallible,  and  therefore 
not  Christ's  rule.  Now  by  parity  of  reason- 
ing, a  rule  that  does  not  regulate  practice  so 
as  to  make  an  end  of  sin,  and  make  men 
perfect  here,  must  be  a  fallible  rule.  For 
faith  is  in  order  to  holiness — and  the  rule  of 
faith  looks  finally  "  to  the  purifying  of  our 
souls  even  as  Christ  is  pure.''''  But  your 
rule,  I  need  hardly  say,  "  makes  none  of  the 
comers  thereunto  perfect. ,f  On  the  contrary 
one  of  your  own  distinguished  advocates  said 
that  the  generality  of  your  writers  on  morals, 
seemed  "  to  have  it  as  their  great  business, 
to  teach  how  near  a  man  might  luwfully  come, 
and  yet  not  sin."  (Sir  Thomas  More.)  Sure- 
ly then  if  you  are  consistent,  you  should  re- 


ject your  rule.  I  do  not  see  how  you  can 
retain  it,  and  yet  argue  against  the  Bible  as 
a  rule  of  faith,  because  it  fails  to  make  those 
infallible  who  adopt  it  as  such. 

You  take  peculiar  pleasure  in  associating 
the  Protestant  name  and  cause  with  infidelity 
and  extreme  heresies.  The  names  of  "Vol- 
ney  and  Priestly,"  of  "Universalists,"  "Unita- 
rians," &c.  &c.  seem  to  fluctuate  through  your 
fancy  in  close  alliance  with  liberty  of  thought, 
with  the  use  of  the  Bible,  and  the  freedom  of 
the  press.  Now  it  is  very  certain  that  the 
Bible  never  made  a  Roman  Catholic;  and  the 
fear  expressed  by  one  of  the  defenders  of 
your  faith  in  former  days,  that  its  free  perusal 
made  Protestants,  ever  haunts  your  loyal 
breast.  Let  me  here  remind  you  that  Atheism 
has  always  flourished  most,  by  the  side  of  the 
Roman  shrine  ;  and  where  the  Bible  has  been 
opened  on  the  human  mind,  there  truth  and 
order,  like  the  sun,  has  arisen  and  shone  upon 
the  people.  Compare  Scotland  with  Spain; 
Holland  with  Italy ;  Prussia  with  Portugal ; 
England  with  France  ;  our  own  country  with 
the  Mexican  or  South  American  States.  What 
has  made  the  immense  difference  ?  The  Bible, 
read  without  restraint,  and  multiplied  without 
limit,  and  preached  with  boldness  and  fidelity 
to  a  thinking  people.  Having  no  space  now 
for  this  topic,  I  promise,  in  future  numbers,  to 
give  you  ample  proof  of  the  intimate  union  be- 
tween Romanism  and  infidelity,  and  Roman- 
ism and  extreme  heresy. 

You  slip  the  case  of"  the  collier''  with  far 
nearer  approaches  to  profanity  than  right  rea- 
soning. It  is  possible  "  your  rule  of  faith  may 
be  fallible;"  or  your  collier  may  be  "deranged,'' 
when  he  begins  to  inquire  and  think,  after  the 
slumber  of  his  faculties  for  some  half  a  centu- 
ry, under  the  Roman  anodyne  of  implicit 
faith.  But  surely  it  ought  never  to  be  made 
an  alternative  in  a  proposition,  that  "Jesus 
Christ  was  a  Juggler!"  Suppose,  however, 
you  apply  the  illustration  to  any  other  book, 
say  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.  or  the  "Book  of 
Bulls,"  or  "  The  Fathers."  Has  language  not 
a  fixed  meaning?  Are  there  not  plain  rules 
for  its  interpretation  ?  Can  we  not  understand 
a  book  because  one  man  says  it  means  this, 
and  another  that,  and  a  third  something  else  ? 
And  must  we  call  the  Bible  a  fallible  guide, 
because  some  men  may,  and  will,  wrest  it? 
Must  we  pin  our  faith  to  the  Pope's  sleeve, 
because  we  are  liable  to  error?  Yet  this  is 
all  you  have  to  say  in  defence  of  implicit 
faith.  The  sum  of  it.  is  this — that  the  collier 
does  (even  as  we  have  said,)  believe  what  he 
is  told,  and  because  he  is  told  it;  but  it  is  bet- 


47 


ter  to  do  so,  than  worse;  and  he  will  do  worse 
if  he  thinks  for  himself ! 

You  next  attempt  an  oblique  defence  of 
your  rule  from  the  many  objections  which  I 
have  brought  against  it.     In  the  fifth  column, 
3d  paragraph,  you  say,  "  articles  of  faith  and 
morals  are  the  only  objects  of  definition  and 
transmission;  neither  does  the  church  claim, 
nor  has  she  exercised  the  right  of  creating 
new  articles  of  faith."    Now  I  ask,  did  not  the 
Council  of  Trent  make  new  articles  of  faith  ? 
Did  she  not  order  a  new  Creed,  containing 
these  12  articles,  and  binding  all  her  commu- 
nion to   hold   them,  under  pain   of  spiritual 
death  ?     And  were  there  not  even  new  sacra- 
ments among  these  articles?     I  referred  you 
for  proof  to  the  literary  fraud  by  which  "  ex- 
treme unction'''  was  attempted  to  be  made  a 
sacrament,  in   your  church  standards.     You 
are  silent  about  it !     What  I  have  said  above 
about  Leo  X's  condemnation  of  Luther,  plain- 
ly shows  that  you  differ  from  him,  and  that  he 
claimed  the  right  not  only  to  "  define,"  but 
"  create""  articles  of  faith,  and  "  impose  them 
on  men  for  their  belief"     Transubstantiation, 
indulgences,  taking  the  cup  from  the  laity  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  andyzwe  of  your  seven  sa- 
craments are  palpable  innovations  ;  are  new 
articles  of  faith,   brought  in  by  your  church 
from  age  to  age,  and  gathered  up,  and  put  in- 
to the  creed,  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 

In  your  second  answer  "to  objections"  co- 
lumn 5th,  you  pass  by  the  questions  by  say- 
ing, "  discipline  may  vary."  I  suppose  it  is  a 
point  of  discipline  to  forbid  the  use  of  the 
Scriptures;  to  restrict  the  freedom  of  the  press; 
to  claim  the  government  of  kingdoms;  to  es- 
tablish the  inquisition  ;  to  burn  heretics;  and 
encourage  extended  and  bloody  massacres;  as 
of  the  Waldenses  and  Hugonots  !  Under 
this  head  too,  I  suppose  you  comprehend 
your  apology  for  the  "  ambitious  projects" 
of  "  individual  Popes."  This  is  strange  lan- 
guage !  "  Individual  Popes  !"  And  yet  is 
this  all  you  can  reply  to  all  I  have  brought 
from  the  Popes  and  from  the  councils,  show- 
ing  that  your  system  is  incompatible  with  per- 
sonal and  civil  liberty?  Your  allusion  to  the 
Presbyterian  minister  now  in  the  state-prison 
of  New-York,  is  legitimate.  We  mourn  over 
such  men— we  depose  them  from  their  office; 
for  we  do  not  think,  with  your  church,  that  a 
man  may,  like  Judas,  be  a  good  Pope,  and 
yet  a  bad  man.  The  history  of  your  Popes 
is  the  blackest  page  of  human  story.     The 


moral  of  "  bad  man  and  good  Pope"  reminds 
us  of  the  Archbishop,  (he  was  also  a  prince) 
who  swore  profanely  in  the  presence  of  a 
peasant;  the  peasant  exclaimed  with  surprise, 
"  Archbishop,  do  you  swear  P"  "  No,"  he  re- 
plied, "  / swear  as  a  prince."  "  Then,"  said 
the  peasant,  "  When  Satan  comes  for  the 
prince,  what  will  become  of  the  archbishop?" 
I  will  refer  to  only  one  other  evasion  of 
yours.  You  answer  my  statement,  that  the 
Pope  held  a  great  anniversary  at  Rome,  to  bless 
all  sorts  of  beasts  (while  he  curses  Bible  so- 
cieties) with  an  unworthy  levity,  about  "  a 
similar  operation  over  a  good  piece  of  beef." 
I  have  been  accustomed  to  think  that  such 
a  service  was  thanking  God,  and  asking 
his  blessing  on  ourselves,  not  on  the  food  we 
eat.  But  the  superstition  and  darkness  of  that 
Pontiff  who  can  encourage  such  an  anniversa- 
ry, and  the  degraded  condition  of  "the  Mother 
and  Mistress  of  churches,"  who  can  uphold 
such  a  celebration,  remain  still  unexplained. 
If,  however,  the  blessings  were  confined  to 
dead  beasts,  and  the  anathemas  removed  from 
living  men  ivho  circulate  the  Bible,  it  might 
be  pitied,  if  not  defended. 

Your  objections  on  the  points  of  infant  bap- 
tism, the  change  of  the  Sabbath,  and  the  prac- 
tices of  our  church  as  to  the  pastoral  relation, 
surely  have  little  to  do  with  the  rule  of  faith. 
The  1st  and  2d  come  appropriately  under  the 
subject  of  tradition,  on  which  you  yet  are  si- 
lent. I  will  here  only  say  that  we  find  satis- 
factory proof  for  all  the  three  practices  in  the 
word  of  God ;  or  we  would  discard  them.  We 
reject  not  testimony  which  sustains  our  doc- 
trines; (not  opinions)  but  we  look  not  to  "  un- 
written tradition"  for  their  support ;  and  "  if 
the  candlestick  of  the  Roman  angel  were  re- 
moved to-morrow,"  we  lose  not  a  jot  of  proof 
on  any  subject,  except  that  of  the  depravity 
of  man.  But  more  of  this  hereafter,  when, 
providence  permitting,  we  hope  to  satisfy  you 
in  still  further  defending  and  illustrating  the 
true  rule  of  faith,  i.  e.  the  Holy  Spirit  speak- 
ing in  the  Bible. 

I  have  been  informed  that  Bishop  Kenrick 
did,  on  the  17th  of  February  last,  in  St.  Mary's 
church,  (Philadelphia)  publicly  warn  the  peo- 
ple against  reading  this  controversy.  I  ask, 
is  this  true  or  not?  If  it  be,  it  is  not  only  a 
manifest  interference,  but  a  portentous  intima- 
tion. 

I  remain,  Sir,  yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY N°.  7. 


Rei!e  of  Fallla. 


Philadelphia,   March   15,   1833. 

To  the  Rev.   John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.    Sir, — The   first  paragraph   of  your 
last  letter,  purports  to  be  an  epitome  of  our 
preliminary  arrangements,  and  of  the  victo- 
ries you  have  gained  since  the  campaign  has 
been  regularly  opened.     In  reference  to  the 
former  1  had  thought,  that  our  readers  must 
have  been  sufficiently  punished   by  the  pub- 
lication of  a  correspondence   which   was   as 
tedious   as    it    was    puerile.      Ten    minutes 
frank  conversation   would   have  settled    the 
rules    of   this    discussion.     The    perusal    of 
those  letters,   like   Swift's  meditation   on  a 
broomstick,  showed  how  much  could  be  made 
of  a  trifle.     Finally,   however,  we  reached 
the  goal;  the  rules  were  arranged  and  signed 
by  mutual  agreement.      If  there  is  any  thing 
more  to  be  said  on  the  subject,  let  it  be  re- 
served for  the  Appendix.     But  I  cannot  con- 
sent that  these  same  rules  which  cost  us  so 
much  trouble,  should  be  construed  into  mere 
"  modes    and    forms."     You,    indeed,    have 
hitherto  treated  them  as  svch,  and  thus  com- 
pelled me  to  expose  your  violation   of  them. 
If  I   had   compared   the  Protestant  rule    of 
faith,  with  Calvin's  blasphemy,   in  asserting 
that  God  is  the  author  of  sin,   and  that  Jesus 
Christ  spoke    ironically,   when  he   directed 
the  young  man  in   the  Gospel   to  keep  the 
commandments,   such  reasoning  would  have 
been  violating  the   rules.      Because  it  would 
have  been  taking  for  granted,  what  you  deny, 
but   you,  on  the  contrary,  have  assailed  all 
those  doctrines  of  our   church  which  Pi-otes- 
tants  have  rejected;  and  instead   of  compar- 
ing our  rule  of  faith  with  your  own  defini- 
tion of  the  true  principle,  you  appeal  to 
the  tribunal  of  prejudice  where  it  had  been 
already  condemned!     I    say   that  the  doc- 
trines of  the   Catholic   Church  are  the  true 
doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ — and  that  Protes- 
tants  in   rejecting  them,   have  forsaken  the 
fountains   of   living   water,    and    digged    to 
themselves  broken   cisterns.     But  I    should 
be  sorry  to  make  this  assertion  the   basis  of 
an  argument  against  your  rule  of  faith.     For 
you  would  very  properly  say,  that  I  was  beg- 
ging the  question  by  such  a  procedure.     It 


seems  you  find  the  strict  principles  of  logic 
irksome,  and  all  things  considered,  I  am  not 
surprised  at  it.  Nevertheless,  they  are  and 
must  continue  to  be  the  polar  star  of  this  dis- 
cussion. 

But  then  your  victories!  "You  have  ex- 
posed our  rule"—"  you  have  proved  its  ut- 
ter fallibility" — "you  have  shown  that  our 
church  has  varied  in  doctrine  from  age  to 
a<re" — "you  have  shown  that  our  rule  is  not 
only  entirely  fallible,  but  greatly  evil,"  not 
only  "greatly  evil" — but  it  "  usurps  the 
prerogatives  of  God" — not  only  "it  usurps 
the  prerogatives  of  God,"  but  it  "  is  in- 
compatible WITH  PERSONAL  OR  CIVIL  LI- 
BERTY," &c.  In  short,  one  is  at  a  loss  to  imag- 
ine what  it  is,  that  you  have  not  "shown." 
And  what  was  my  reply  to  all  these  "show- 
ings?"  Chiefly  that  they  violate  the  rules"!!! 

Among  the  ancient  Romans,  it  was  for  the 
Senate  to  vote  the  honours  of  a  triumph; 
and  to  you  I  need  not  hint,  that  the  patience 
with  which  a  Roman  General,  at  the  head  of 
his  victorious  legions,  waited  the  decision  of 
the  Senate,  furnishes  a  beautiful  example  of 
republican  modesty, — and,  conveys  a  moral. 
It  was  only  in  the  degenerate  times,  when 
boys  were  emperors,  and  emperors  were  ty- 
rants, that  it  became  fashionable  for  a  man 
to  wreath  his  own  brows  with  the  laurel  of 
victory— for  having  simply  "marched  an 
army  up  the  hill,  then  marched  them  down 

again."  , 

Still,  on  the  subject  of  what  you  have 
"shown"  and  "proved"  and  accomplished, all 
our  readers  will  form  theirown  judgment.  That 
you  intended  to  do  all  you  have  said,  I  make 
not  the  least  doubt;  but  beware  of  the  "  doc- 
trine of  intentions."  For  be  assured,  that 
whatever  opinion  you  may  form  of  your  own 
labours,  the  public  begin  to  look  upon  your 
situation,  (in  reference  to  the  rule  of 
faith  at  least,)  as  somewhat  like  that  of 
Pyrrhus,  when  he  exclaimed,  on  the  battle 
field:  "Give  me  another  victory  like  this, 
and  I  am  ruined." 

In  my  last  letter,  I  said  that  one^  or  two 
of  your  assertions  were  "untrue."  I  ex- 
pressed at  the  same  time,  my  regret  that  you 


50 


had  left  it  in  my  power,  or  rather  compelled 
me,  so  to  characterize  them.  For  religion 
always  suffers,  when  they,  who  profess  to 
be  her  ministers,  violate,  even  in  the 
slightest  degree,  those  sacred  principles  of 
moral  integrity  which  constitute  the  bond  of 
well-ordained  society,  and  the  foundation  of 
honour; — even  as  it  is  understood  in  the  ordi- 
nary transactions  and  intercourse  of  men. 
It  was  on  this  ground,  that  I  considered  the 
"task  painful.''''  I  did  not,  nor  do  I  now, 
make  the  slightest  charge  against  you  per- 
sonally; but  I  perceived  that  my  suggestion 
to  be  cautious  in  quoting  authorities,  had 
been  slighted.  I  perceived  from  your  letter 
to  the  young  lady  in  Baltimore,  that  you 
were  ready  to  take  up,  as  loeapons  of  destruc- 
tion, those  antiquated  calumnies,  by  which 
the  "delusion"  of  Protestantism  has  sus- 
tained itself,  against  the  apostolical  evidences 
of  the  Catholic  religion  for  the  last  three 
hundred  years.  And  that,  without  intending 
it,  perhaps,  you  would  copy  the  falsehoods, 
which  have  been  asserted  one  thousand  times 
by  your  predecessors  in  controversy,  and  as 
often  refuted  by  mine.  I  perceived  that 
you  had  forgotten  the  Philosophy  of  the 
Holy  Scripture,  which  tells  us  "  the  Ethio- 
pian cannot  change  the  colour  of  his  skin," 
nor  "the  leopard  his  spots," — that  the  pro- 
position, which  was  false,  when  it  was  as- 
serted, for  the  first  time,  cannot  become  true, 
by  multitudinous  repetition.  All  this  I  had 
perceived  before  we  began  this  controversy. 
My  experience  since,  has  not  disappointed 
my  anticipations.  I  told  you  that  Usher, 
was  a  Protestant  Archbishop;  although  vou 
had  placed  him  side  by  side  with  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas  as  a  faithful  expositor  of  Catholic 
doctrine; — you  were  candid  enough  since,  to 
acknowledge  that  I  was  right;  and  to  plead 
that  the  error  was  to  be  ascribed  to  "some 
strange  mistake  of  printing." — But  how 
comes  it  that  this  "  strange  mistake;"  has 
not  been  corrected?  How  comes  it,  that  the 
sentence  "  of  Usher's  authority  among  Ro- 
manists we  need  not  speak" — is  still  going 
the  rounds  of  the  Protestant  newspapers, 
for  the  edification  of  the  illiterate  and  the 
amusement  of  the  learned? 

In  your  last  letter  but  one,  you  asserted 
that  "  Luther  was  condemned  for  saying, 
"  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  church  or  the 
Pope  to  constitute  ("new")  articles  of 
faith."  I  replied  that  this  assertion  was  "un- 
true;" and  if  the  word  seem  uncourteous,  you 
must  blame  the  poverty  of  the  English  lan- 
guage, which  could  not  furnish  me  with  any 
other  to  express  my  exact  meaning.    Luther's 


words  are  these, — "  Certum  est  in  manu  Ec- 
clesise  aut  Papae  prorsus  non  esse  statuere  ar- 
ticulos  fidei,  imo  nee  leges  morum,  seu  bono- 
rum  operum."  £7.  The  literal  translation  of 
which  is  this:  "It  is  certain  that  it  is  not 
in  the  power  of  the  church  or  the  Pope  to 
define  or  determine  articles  of  faith,  nor 
even  laws  of  morals  or  good  works."  In 
your  first  translation  you  inserted  the  word 
'  new' before  'articles,'  in  your  second,  you 
deem  it  more  prudent  to  leave  it  out — And 
yet  you  have  the  courage  to  say,  that  your 
second  version  is  "word  for  word  whvt 
you  had  said  before !"  Let  the  reader 
compare  them.  It  was  yourself,  Rev'd  Sir, 
and  not  Luther,  that  spoke  of  new  articles 
of  faith.  Here  then  is  my  first  plea  for 
having  said  the  assertion  was  "untrue." 

My  second  is,  that  Luther,  thanks  to  his 
Catholic  education,  was  too  good  a  classical 
scholar,  to  use  the  word  "  statuere'''  if  he  had 
meant  exclusively  "to  create,"  or — according 
to  the  liberal  translation  which  you  first  gave 
it,  to  "  constitute  new  articles  of  faith."  Every 
one  the  least  acquainted  with  Ecclesiastical 
language  knows  that  statuere,  is  a  kind  of 
standing  or  technical  word,  to  express  the 
judgment  of  a  council  or  other  authoritative 
body,  in  determining  questions,  or  deciding 
controversies.  If  this  is  not  sufficient,  let 
us  recur  back  to  the  good  old  Latin  times, 
when  Livy  said,  "Statuere  terminos" — "to 
fix,  settle  or  determine  the  boundaries." — 
Cicero,  "Statuere  documentum" — "to  de- 
liver instruction." — Plautus,  "  statuere  na- 
vem" — "  to  bring  the  ship  to  anchor."  This, 
according  to  your  vocabulary,  ought,  I  sup- 
pose, to  be  translated — "  to  constitute  a  new 
ship" — or,  "create  a  ship.''  And  yet,  you 
say,  towards  the  close  of  your  last  letter 
"  What  I  have  said  above  of  Leo  the  tenth's 
condemnation  of  Luther,  plainly  shows  that 
you  (Mr.  Hughes)  differ  from  him,  and  that 
he  claimed  the  right  not  only  to  "  define," 
but  to  "  create"  articles  of  faith,  and  impose 
them  on  men  for  their  belief/" 

My  third  plea  is,  that  the  Bull  of  Leo  X. 
censured,  enmasse,  all  the  forty-one  proposi- 
tions of  Luther.  One  of  which  was,  that  the 
"Contrition,  which  a  man  conceives  from 
considering  the  multitude,  grievousness,  and 
defilement  of  his  sin; — the  loss  of  heaven, 
and  exposure  to  hell; — that  this  kind  of  con- 
trition or  repentance  makes  him  a  hypocrite 
and  a  greater  sinner.  (1)  This  was  one  of 
the  propositions. 


(1.)  u  Contritio  quae  paratur  per   discus- 
sionem,  collationem,  et  detestationem  pec- 


51 


How  then,  Rev.  Sir,  came  you  to  assert 
and  repeat,  that  "  Leo  X.  condemned  Lu- 
ther simply  "  for  saying,^  (what  in  fact 
Luther  never  meant  to  say)  "  that  it  is  not 
in  the  power  of  the  church  or  the  Pope  to 
constitute  new  articles  of  faith?"  In  refer- 
ence to  this  matter,  therefore,  without  pre- 
tending to  much  knowledge,  I  must  decline 
being  protected  bytheshield  of  "  ignorance," 
which  you  have  charitably  offered  me.  If 
you  have  no  use  for  it,  you  might  hang  it  up 
amidst  the  other  trophies  of  your  victory. 
Thus  it  is,  that  you  are  warranted  in  say- 
ing, that  "the  nerves  of  my  cause  are  cracking 
under  the  pressure  of  truth!" 

But,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive,  how  you 
could  have  imagined  that  Bishop  Kenrick 
ever  dreamt  of  "  publicly'-  (or  even  private- 
ly) "  warning  the  people  against  reading  this 
controversy."  Be  assured,  Rev.  Sir,  that  he 
regards  as  too  precious,  this  opportunity  of 
letting  the  people  see,  what  kind  of  tceapons 
are  employed  on  your  side,  in  assailing  the 
everlasting  foundations  of  their  religion. 
They,  certainly,  invade  no  man's  rights, 
when  they  claim  the  simple  faculty  of  know- 
ing what  they  believe; — and  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  this  faculty,  they  are  highly  amused 
at  the  successive  portraits  of  their  belief, 
which  proceed  from  your  pencil.  The  Pope, 
or  a  General  Council,  if  any  doctrinal  con- 
troversy were  to  arise  in  the  church,  might 
determine  what  they  ought  to  believe;  but 
you  go  a  little  farther,  and  tell  them  exactly 
what  they  do  believe.  Bishop  Kenrick  has 
too  great  a  zeal  for  the  religion  of  Christ,  not 
to  allow  the  reading  of  this  controversy:  and 
if  there  were  any  doubts  in  the  minds  of  Ca- 
tholics as  to  the  divine  origin  of  their  faith, 
the  perusal  of  your  letters  would  be  quite 
as  effectual  in  removing  them,  as  that  of 
mine.  What  will  even  Protestants  conclude, 
when  they  perceive,  that  you  labour  to  sup- 
port your  positions  by  assertions,  which  are 
untrue?  Shall  I  quote  another  instance?  In 
your  letter  No.  4.  of  this  controversy  you  as- 
sert, that  "  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  repeats  only  four  words  of  the  second 
commandment,  and  closes  with  an  expressive 
et  "  cmtera."     Now,  every  Catholic  through- 

catorum,  qua  quis  recogitet  annos  suos  in 
amaritudine  animae  suse,  ponderando  pecca- 
torum  gravitatem,  multitudinem,  fceditatem, 
amissionem  asternse  beatitudinis,  ac  aeternae 
damnationis  acquisitionem,  hsec  contritio 
facit  hypocritam,  imo  magis  peccatorem." 
Luther's  6th  proposition  included  in  the  Bull 
of  Leo  X. 


out  the  world,  that  ever  read  the  Catechism 
of  the  council  of  Trent,  knows  that  this  as- 
sertion is  untrue!  (2)  And  still  you  begin 
your  last  letter  with  a  flourish  of  trumpets  to 
sound  my  defeat,  and  proclaim  that  "  the 
nerves  of  my  cause  are  cracking  under  the 
pressure  of  truth.v  Protestants  themselves 
will  begin  to  learn  the  real  state  of  the  case; 
— and  the  means,  by  which  their  religious 
opinions  are  vindicated,  will  begin  to  have  a 
reflex  operation  which  you  little  suspect. 

Will  the  public  deem  it  too  much,  if  I  re- 
quest you  to  correct  these  assertions? — and 
henceforward  to  quote  the  entire  passage  or 
text  of  our  authors,  on  which  you  build  an 
argument? 

Since  your  allusion  to  Bishop  Kenrick  has 
led  me  into  this  episode,  I  may  as  well  close 
it  with  a  little  incident  which  occurred  to 
myself  last  Spring,  and  does  not  therefore 
depend  on  "information."  I  happened  to 
go  into  the  session  room  of  the  "  General 
Assembly,"  and  found  the  "Bishops"  en- 
gaged in  settling  a  question,  which  I  soon 
discovered  to  be  interesting,  viz.  "Whether 
baptism,  administered  by  a  Catholic  Priest, 
is  valid?  A  committee,  it  seems,  had  been 
appointed  to  draw  up  a  report,  which  was 
being  read  when  I  entered.  The  committee 
had  decided  in  the  negative,  and  in  support 
of  this  decision,  reported  a  variety  of  rea- 
sons, with  two  of  which  I  was  particularly 
struck.  One  was,  that  they  (Catholic  Priests) 
baptize  in  Latin;  as  if  infants  were  not  quite 
as  well  acquainted  with  this  language,  as 
with  any  other.  The  second  was,  that  they 
(Catholic  Priests)  baptize  with  oil — a 
discovery  reported  on  the  authority  of  a  cer- 
tain Doctor,  I  think,  of  Maryland.  It  was 
listened  to  with  great,  but  silent  solemnity — 
although  there  were  at  the  moment  five  bap- 
tismal founts,  in  as  many  Catholic  churches, 
within  half  a  mile  of  where  the  Assembly 
was  sitting: — and  though  it  is  known  to  all 
the  world  that  the  Catholic  baptism  is,  and 
ever  has  been,  with  water.  I  retired  from 
the  presence  of  these  "Teachers  in  Israel," 
revolving  in  my  mind,  the  words  of  our  bles- 
sed Redeemer;  "  If,  in  the  green  wood,  they 
do  these  things,  what  shall  be  done  in  the 
dry  ?" 

But  to  return  to  your  assertions.  You 
stated  that  it  is  a  principle  of  Catholics,  "that 
if  the  Pope  were  to  command  vice  and  pro- 
hibit virtue,  he  is  to  be  obeyed."  Now  it 
is  a  fact,  that  Bellarmine,  to  whom  you  re- 


(2.)  Pars  III.  de  Decal.  obser.  De  primo 
praecepto  C.  I.  16. 


52 


fer,  (3)  used  these  words,  to  express  the  ab- 
surd and  impious  consequence,  that  would 
flow  from  the  opinion  which  he  was  then 
refuting!  Just  as  I  argued  that  the  Protes- 
tant rule  of  faith,  as  exemplified  in  the  case 
of  the  "  Collier,"  would  lead  to  the  impious 
alternative,  that  "Christ  was  a  juggler." 
"XV i  1 1  you  have  the  courage  to  deny,  that  Bel- 
larmine  made  the  statement,  to  show  the 
absurd  and  immoral  consequence  that  would 
flow  from  the  argument  he  was  refuting? 
"What  then  will  Protestants  think  of  such 
pei'versions? — Again,  you  refer  to  the  16th 
canon  of  the  3d  Council  of  Lateran,  on  the 
"  validity  of  oaths'' — to  show  that,  according 
to  Catholic  doctrine,  "an  oath  contrary  to 
ecclesiastical  utility  is  perjury,  not  an  oath!" 
(Mr.  Breckinridge — conclusion  of  Letter  No. 
2.)  Now  what  is  the  fact?  That  the  Coun- 
cil was  legislating  on  cases  of  ecclesiastical 
elections,  where  a  factious  minority  pleaded 
the  obligation  of  a  previous  oath,  to  justify 
their  dissent  from  the  voice  and  vote  of  the 
majority. {A)  Just  as  if  the  Supreme  Court 
were  to  say,  that  an  oath,  taken  under  the 
late  "  Ordinance"  of  South  Carolina,  is  to  be 
considered  not  an  oath,  but  rather  perjury. 
What  will  Protestants  think  of  ti his  perver- 
sion? or  of  the  cause  which  required  it? 
"Will  you  have  the  candour  to  publish  the 
errata  ? 

If,  instead  of  being  the  advocate  of  truth, 
I  were  merely  the  representative  of  a  party, 
I  might  triumph  in  this  exposition,  which  / 
challenge  you  to  contravene.  But  /am  not 
the  person  to  enjoy  such  a  triumph;  and  it 
would  have  been  infinitely  more  grateful  to 
my  feelings,  both  as  a  Christian  and  as  a 
man,  if  you  had  spared  me  the  necessity  of 
making  this  exposure. 

Another  point,  on  which  we  are  at  is- 
sue, is  the  "  Pope's  supremacy."     You  had 

(3.)  "  Secundo,  quia  tunc  necessario  erra- 
ret,  etiam  circa  fidem.  Nam  fides  Catholica 
docet  omnem  virtutem  esse  bonam,  omne  viti- 
vm  esse  malum:  Si  autem  Papa  erraret,  pras- 
cipiendo  vitia,  vel  prohibendo  virtutes,  tenere- 
tur  Ecclesia  credere  vitia  esse  bona  et  vir- 
tutes esse  mala,  nisi  vellet  contra  conscien- 
tiam  peccare.''  Bellarmine,  Lib.  iv.  de  Rom. 
Pont.  C.  V. 

_  (4.)  Nee  n ns tram  constitutionem  impediat, 
si  forte  aliquis  ad  conservandam  Ecclesia? 
suee  consuetudinem  juramento  se  dicat  ad- 
slriclum:  non  enim  dicenda  sunt  juramenta, 
sed  potius  perjuria,  quae  contra  utilitatem 
Ecclesiasticam  et  sanctorum  Patrum  veniunt 
instituta"  Con.  Lat.  C.  xvi. 


asserted  that  on  this  subject  "  there  are  no 
less  than  three  systems  in  our  church." 
This  assertion  I  pronounced  to  be,  what  it  is, 
"untrue."  I  gave  you  the  whole  universe, 
and  challenged  you  to  name  so  much  as  one 
Catholic,  who  denied  the  Pope's  supremacy! 
You  have  not  been  able  to  discover  one. 
The  supremacy  of  the  Pope  and  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  church,  are  articles  of  Catholic 
faith  and  doctrine: — and  on  no  point  of  Ca- 
tholic doctrine  are  there  three,  or  even  two 
systems,  in  our  church.  We  have  one  Lord, 
one  faith,  and  one  baptism.  You  refer  to  the 
authority  of  the  Council  of  Basle — but  that 
Council  became  a  spurious  assembly,  after 
the  Pope's  legates,  and  the  greater  part  of 
the  Bishops,  retired  from  it  to  Ferrara— and 
those,  who  remained,  had  about  as  much  au- 
thority to  define  a  tenet  of  Catholic  doctrine, 
as  Luther  had  to  excommunicate  the  Pope, 
which  he  did  right  manfully,  by  way  of  re- 
turning a  compliment,  which  his  Holiness 
had  recently  paid  him.  2dly.  Even  this  spu- 
rious remnant  of  a  Council  did  not  pass  any 
decree  affecting  the  dogma  of  the  Pope's  su- 
premacy. That,  which  you  have  quoted,  re- 
lates to  a  supposed  case,  in  which  an  actual 
Pope  and  an  actual  Council,  should  be  op- 
posed to  each  other,  and  it  was  decided  that 
in  such  a  case  the  preponderance  of  authority 
should  belong  to  the  Council.  This  decision, 
though  emanating  from  a  spurious  source, 
and  founded  on  hypothesis,  does  not  even 
question  the  Pope's  supremacy  as  an  article  of 
Catholic  doctrine.  Devoti's  testimony  has 
reference,  in  the  very  text,  to  the  Pope's  in- 
fallibility, which  is  not  an  article  of  faith, 
but  between  which  and  supremacy,  it  seems 
you  are  unable,  or  unwilling  to  make  a  dis- 
tinction. These,  then,  are  your  first  two 
systems. — The  third,  you  tell  us,  "  deifies 
the  Pope" — this  acknowledges  the  very  ple- 
nitude of  supremacy.  But  how  can  you  be 
serious,  when  you  make  this  assertion?  If 
some  of  our  citizens  were  to  theorize  on  the 
constitution  of  our  government — one  school 
teaching  that  Congress  is  superior  to  the 
President — another,  that  the  President  is  su- 
perior to  Congress — would  that  circumstance 
warrant  an  English  traveller  to  publish  to 
his  countrymen,  that  the  "  Americans  are 
divided  into  two  systems"  on  the  subject  of 
the  President's  supre?nacy,  as  chief  magistrate 
of  the  whole  republic?  And  if  some  orator, 
in  the  glow  of  patriotic  reminiscence,  which 
the  fourth  of  July  usually  inspires,  should 
happen  to  say,  "the  god-like  Washington, 
the  saviour  of  his  country,"  would  that  prove 
that  the  "  Americans  deify  their  Presidents?" 


53 


/ 
Here  are  "three  systems,"  on  which  even  I  canon  of  Scripture  held  by  the  Council  of 

..  .•'.....  r.  .     ■  -r      l  nrt  .        •         it.. iL.i „„*<■!„, J     U_     iU„ 


Mrs.  Trollope  could  build  a  fine  tale,  if  she 
could  only  induce  people  to  believe  it.  But, 
just  lend  me  the  "Protestant  rule  of  faith" 
for  a  few  minutes,  and  I  will  prove  from 
Scripture,  that  it  is  right  to  call  the  Pope 
God.  "  You  are  Gods."  Psalms  Ixxxi.  6. — 
*•  I  have  appointed  thee  God  of  Pharaoh." 
Exod.  vii.  1. — See  also  Exod.  xxii.  28.  John 
x.  34.  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  I  return  you  your 
rule  of  faith,  and  hope  you  will  be  satisfied 
with  my  proof,  since  "I  give  you  chapter  and 
verse  for  it."  But  as  to  the  "three  systems" 
of  doctrine  in  our  church  on  the  subject  of 
the  Pope's  supremacy, — you  might  as  well 
look  for  "  three  suns"  in  the  heavens. 
Throughout  the  whole  universe  there  is  but 
one  system  of  doctrine  among  Catholics  on 
this  point.  Every  proposition  asserting  the 
contrary  is  "  untrue."  Name,  if  you  can,  a 
Catholic  in  the  whole  world,  who  has  pub- 
licly denied  that  supremacy,  without  break- 
ing the  bond  of  communion  and  membership, 
which  united  him  to  the  church. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  your  review  of 
my  arguments  in  favour  of  the  Catholic  rule 
of  faith.  In  my  last  letter  I  gave  the  authority 
of  Scripture  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  esta- 
blished a  Church,  by  giving  a  divine  commis- 
sion to  his  apostles  and  their  legitimate  suc- 
cessors, until  the  end  of  the  world — that  this 
commission  extended  to  the  teaching  of  all 
nations — that  to  this  commission  he  attached 
the  attribute  of  his  own  infallibility.  "As 
the  Father  hath  sent  me,  so  do  I  send  you" — 
"He  that  hears  you,  hear  me;  and  he,  that 
despises  you,  despises  me;  and  he  that  des- 
pises me,  despises  him  that  sent  me." 

How  did  you,  Rev.  Sir,  answer  these  ar- 
guments? Did  you  deny  the  authorities? 
Did  you  detect  error  in  the  reasoning?  Did 
you  accuse  me  of  illogical  deductions?  Not 
at  all.  You  have  recourse  to  the  old  me- 
thod of  distortion;  and  tell  us  that  my  rule 
of  faith  is  "  in  substance  this:"  "the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  is  the  living  infallible  in- 
terpreter of  Scripture."  And  then  you  de- 
duce your  own  consequence  from  your  own 
distortion  of  my  argument.  "Now  it  will 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  before  any  church 
can  interpret,  it  must  know  what  is  to  be 
interpreted." — "  What  do  you  mean  by  the 
Holy  Scriptures?" — "the  Council  of  Trent 
has  settled  the  question,  &c. '' — And  then 
having  worked  out  the  distortion  to  your  own 
purposes,  you  tilt  away  at  the  Council  of 
Trent,  and  affect  to  wonder  that  I  did  not 
begin  by  settling  the  canon  of  Scripture,  in- 
stead of  proving  "the  rule  of  faith!"     The 


Trent,  is  the  same  that  was  settled  by  the 
Council  of  Carthage  in  397.  And  if  John 
Calvin,  in  the  \6th  century,  thought  proper 
to  become  a  Protestant  against  some  books  of 
that  canon,  it  is  for  his  followers  to  look  to  if. 
But  when  you  say  that  the  "Jews,  our  Lord 
Jesus,  the  apostles,  and  early  fathers,  unite 
to  exclude  them  from  the  canon" — you 
make  another  of  those  assertions  which  might 
be  indecorous  to  call  by  its  proper  appella- 
tion. 

It  docs  not  appear  that  "  our  Lord  Jesus  " 
or  "the  apostles"  ever  determined  or  wrote 
upon  the  subject  of  such  exclusion,  which 
they  certainly  would  have  done,  if  the 
"Scripture  alone"  had  been  intended  as  the 
rule  of  Christian   faith. 

Your  next  alternative  to  evade  the  conse- 
quences flowing  from  the  commission  given  to 
Jesus  Christ  to  his  apostles,  is  to  collate  with  it, 
those  texts  which  communicated  the  power  of 
miracles. — These  certainly  do  not  destroy  the 
commission  which  extended  to  "all  nations 
in  all  days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the 
world."  Now  either  the  apostles  had  succes- 
sors,  for  the  discharge  of  the  commission,  or 
they  had  not.  If  they  had,  then  your  position 
is  untenable.  If  they  had  not,  then  please  to 
tell  us,  what  Christ  could  have  meant  by  com- 
manding the  teaching  of  all  nations  during 
all  days,  even  until  the  end  of  the  world. 
Was  he  speaking  ironically  ? — If  they  had 
not — what  did  St.  Paul  mean,  by  saying  of 
the  Christian  ministry,  no  man  taketh  this  ho- 
nour to  himself,  but  lie  who  is  called  of  God, 
as  was  Aaron?  What  did  he  mean,  by  ap- 
])ointing  Titus  and  Timothy,  and  instructing 
them  to  appoint  other  faithful  men  for  the 
discharge  of  the  same  commission? 

The  little  sophism,  about  the  meaning  of 
the  word  apostle  (one  sent,)  has  not  the  merit 
of  much  ingenuity.  However,  according  to 
your  logic,  in  order  to  "be  sent"  one  must 
have  "seen  the  Lord,"  and  as  the  second 
generation  had  not  seen  the  Lord,  therefore  the 
apostles  had  no  successors!!  But  pray,  did 
the  commission  to  teach  all  nations  during  all 
days,  extend  only  to  those  who  had  seen  the 
Lord?  Did  it  also  expire  with  "  the  last 
apostle?"  If  it  was  discharged  in  the  second 
generation,  were  not  those  by  whom  it  was 
discharged,  in  so  much,  the  regular  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles?  This  is  what  I  con- 
tend for.  Had  General  Washington,  no 
successors  in  the  Presidency  of  this  Repub- 
lic, for  the  very  logical  reason,  that  they 
succeeded  him,  "and  their  appointment  differ- 
ed,in  some  circumstances  from  his?  Jesus  Christ 


54 


gave  a  commission  extending  to  all  nations 
"and^aU  ages  of  the  world.  Mr.  Breckinridge 
says  that  the  commission  ceased  to  be  dis- 
charged after  the  first  generation, — inasmuch 
as  it  wasgiven  to  the  twelve  apostles,  who  liv- 
ed but  a  few  years  and  "had  no  successors." 
Which  shall  we  believe?  Do  not  the  society  of 
"Friends"  view  baptism,  and  the  Universal 
ists,  everlasting  punishment,  in  the  same  ar- 
bitrary lights  of  analogy?  And  if  your  as- 
sertion on  this  subject  be  credited,  will  it 
not  become  natural,  or  rather  unavoidable, 
for  men  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  mere- 
ly sporting  with  human  language,  and  im- 
mortal souls? 

But  how  comes  it,  that  even  Presbyterian 
clergymen  apply  to  themselves  (when  it  suits 
them,)  everytext,by  which  the  Son  of  God  com- 
missioned his  apostles  to  "  teach  all  nations:" 
— to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  and 
to  evangelize  the  world?  Is  it  not  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms  for  them  to  claim  the  authority  of 
a  succession  which  they  deny?  It  is  no  wonder 
that  the  ranks  of  infidelity  should  thicken 
around  us.  As  long  as  the  human  mind  is  go- 
verned by  the  ordinary  laws,  men  must  and 
will  \ook  for  consistency  somewhere: — either  in 
the  desperate  alternative  of  total  scepticism, 
or  in  the  bosom  of  the  Catholic  church,  from 
which  their  fathers  separated.  When  we  hear 
you  asserting  that  the  "  apostles  had  no  succes- 
sors," would  it  not  be  proper  that  some  one 
should  move  at  the  next  General  Assembly, 
that  the  following  article  be  expunged  from 
the  "  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith:" 

"  To  these  (church  officers)  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  are  committed,  by  virtue 
whereof  they  have  power  to  retain  and  remit 
sins,  to  shut  that  kingdom  against  the  impeni- 
tent, both  by  the  word  and  censure;  and  to 
open  it  unto  penitent  sinners  by  the  ministry 
of  the  Gospel,  and  by  absolution  from  cen- 
sures, as  occasion  shall  require."  Chap.  xxx. 
art.  11.  page  166. 

These  are  modest  pretensions  for  gentle- 
men who  assert  that  the  Apostles  had  no 
successors.  Now  I  had  always  thought  that 
these  same  keys  belonged  to  St.  Peter  and 
his  successors.  I  know  by  whom  and  to 
whom  they  were  originally  given,  and  to 
whom  they  still  belong,  if  priority  of  title  and 
possession  be  admitted.  But  as  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge had  informed  me,  that  the  Apostles 
had  no  successors,  I  was  at  a  loss  to  imagine 
what  had  become  of  the  "keys;'' — until 
peeping  into  the  "  Confession  of  Faith,"  I 
learned  to  my  great  edification,  that  they  had 
been  miraculously  discovered  at  Westmin- 
ster, England,  in  the  year   of  our   Lord, 


1647,  and  graciously  fastened, by  act  of  Par- 
liament, to  the  belt  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church! 

The  whole  of  your  strange  position,  against 
the  institution  of  the  "  Catholic  rule  of  faith," 
is  founded  on  the  assertion,  that  the  "  Apos- 
tles had  no  successors" — an  assertion,  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  character  and  extent 
of  the  commission  given  by"  the  Saviour. 
How  could  Christ  impart  such  a  commission 
tcithout  providing  for  Us  fulfilment;  and  how 
could  he  provide  for  its  fulfilment,  without  a 
succession  in  the  ministry  of  teaching? 
Therefore,  unless  you  make  it  appear,  that 
Christ  has  deceived  us,  it  will  follow  as  a  ne- 
cessary consequence,  according  to  the  proofs 
and  reasoning  of  my  last  letter,  that  the 
promise  of  infallibility  was  made  to  the 
Apostles,  and  the  Pastors  of  the  churches, 
their  legitimate  successors,  in  the  ministry  of 
teaching  all  nations,  during  all  days,  even  to 
the  consummation  of  time:— and  not  to  the  pri- 
vate interpretation  of  the  Bible.  Consequent- 
ly, that  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith  is  the  true 
rule,  having  been  "established  by  the  Son  of 
God  himself." 

I  said  that  this  Catholic  rule  is  infallible,  and 
in  your  reply,  you  "grant  that  if  it  was  es- 
tablished by  Christ,  it  is  infallible."  But  then 
you  say,  that  you  have  proved  that  Christ 
did  not  establish  our  rule,  and  my  conclusion 
falls  to  the  ground.  Indeed,  Rev.  Sir,  the 
language  of  Christ,  the  language  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Jipostles,  the  practice  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  for  1800  years,  and  your  own 
Confession  of  Faith  stand  against  you,  and 
show  that  you  have  proved  no  such  thing. 
And  if  you  had  much  confidence  in  either  the 
strength  or  evidence  of  your  "proofs,"  so  call- 
ed,— it  would  have  been  superfluous  in  you 
to  attempt  the  exposition  of  its  fallibility. 
You  say,  that  "  it  is  not  self-evident  that  our 
church  is  infallible,  or  our  rule  the  true  one. 
By  what  process  then,"  you  ask  me,  "  do  I 
apply  these  texts  to  the  proof  of  my  rule?" 
You  answer  the  question  yourself.  "The 
process  of  private  interpretation.'"  On  this 
question  and  answer  you  build  an  argument,  to 
show  that  I  arrive  at  the  proofs  of  the  divine 
establishment  of  the  Catholic  rule,  by  my 
own  private  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
lures: — and  so,  that  I  am  obliged  to  have 
recourse  to  the  Protestant  principle  in  the 
last  resort.  I  had  answered  this  objec- 
tion, before  it  was  written, by  showing  that  in 
the  Catholic  church  every  doctrine,  and  every 
proof  of  every  doctrine,  is  reduced  to  a  simple 
matter  of  fact: — That  these  texts  have  been 
understood,  as  I  have  used  them,  in  all  coun- 


53 


tries  and  ages: — That  their  authority,  mere- 
ly as  historical  evidence,  establishes  the 
point,  and  shows  that  Christ  instituted  a 
ministry  of  teaching,  to  transmit  to  all 
nations  the  knowledge  of  the  doctrines, 
which  he  revealed: — That  to  this  ministry 
he  promised  his  own  perpetual  presence — all 
of  which  are  facts,  with  which  the  principle 
of  private  interpretation  has  as  little  to  do, 
as  it  has  with  ascertaining  whether  or  not 
the  city  of  Philadelphia  was  founded  by  Wil- 
liam Penn.  For  the  farther  proof  of  this,  I 
refer  the  reader  to  my  own  arguments  in  the 
last  letter,  which  you  took  good  care  not  to 
assail. 

Your  next  position  may  be  called  the  ar- 
gument of  confusion.  "  Either  the  Pope  is 
infallible,  or  the  Council:  or  both  united:  or 
the  universal  church.  It  seems  not  to  be 
agreed  among  yourselves,  where  infallibility 
is  lodged,  and  thefore  even  at  the  threshold 
a  great  difficulty  arises."  Christ,  Rev.  Sir, 
was  not  less  the  Son  of  God,  because  "he 
was  a  scandal  to  the  Jews  and  p.  stumbling 
block  to  the  Gentiles."  The  distorted  por- 
traits which  Protestant  writers  have  drawn 
of  the  infallibility,  as  well  as  of  the  other  doc- 
trines of  the  Catholic  church,  may,  indeed, 
raise  difficulties  at  the  "threshold,"  and  pre- 
judice may  regard  them  as  insurmountable. 
fte  can  see  no  difficulty  whatever.  Every 
definition  of  doctrine  and  morals  by  a  Gene- 
ral Council  is  infallible.  It  was  of  such  de- 
finitions (according  to  Catholic  interpretation) 
that  Christ  said:  "He  that  hears  you  hears 
wie,"and"he,  that  will  nothearthechurch,  let 
him  be  to  thee  as  the  heathen  and  the  publi- 
can." No  Council  is  General  or  CEcumenical 
without  the  pope's  concurrence.  Consequent- 
ly, the  spiritual  empire  of  Christ  is  not  divi- 
ded in  the  Catholic  church.  A  man  may  be 
a  very  good  Catholic,  without  inquiring, 
whether  the  Pope  is  officially  infallible  or  not. 
He  may  even  hold  it  as  an  opinion,  that  he 
is  not  infallible,  and  neither  Priest,  nor 
Bishop,  nor  Pope  will  frown  upon  him 
for  his  opinion.  The  Pastors  of  the  church 
are  not,  like  the  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  creators,  but  they  are  merely 
the  guardians  and  expositors  of  the  doc- 
trines, which  they  derived  from  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  apostles.  They  are  the  witness- 
es of  truth,  and  they  are  warranted  by 
a  sacred  authority,  to  reject  even  "  an  an- 
gel from  heaven,"  if  that  angel  attempt  to 
preach  another  doctrine  besides  that  which 
they  have  received.  They  all  teach  the  same 
doctrines.  But  let  me  show  your  argument  in 
a  light,  which  does  not  require  the  use  of  a 


"  sectarian  telescope."  All  Americans  agree 
that  these  United  States  are  independent. 
Now  would  it  be  an  argument  against  this 
independence,  if  any  one  should  raise  "diffi- 
culties," by  asking  where  this  independence 
"  is  lodged'' — whether  in  the  President — or 
in  the  Congress — or  in  both  united — or  in 
the  whole  Republic?  Is  not  the  promise  of 
Jesus  Christ,  that  he  would  be  with  the 
apostles  and  their  successors  in  the  ministry 
of  "teaching"  until  the  end  of  the  world,  as 
good  a  guarantee,  for  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church,  as  the  immortal  "  declaration"  is, 
for  the  independence  of  our  country?  Would 
Christ  be  with  a  ministry,  which  is  supposed 
by  Protestant  opinions,  to  have  been  teach- 
ing error  and  idolatry  for  a  thousand  years 
before  the  "  Reformation"  was  born,  or  for 
three  hundred  since.  If  he  was  not,  what 
became  of  his  pledge  and  promises?  Do  you 
not  perceive,  Rev'd  Sir,  how  questionable 
your  assertions  would  render  the  veracity  of 
Christ?  And  how  they  tend  to  shake  the 
very  foundations  of  Christianity?  Do  you 
imagine  that  the  fulfilment  of  these  promises, 
is  to  be  overturned  by  a  rule  of  grammar? — 
"Two  negatives  make  an  affirmative." 

I  must  now  show  the  reader,  what  a  che- 
mico-logical  process  the  arguments  of  my 
last  letter  were  doomed  to  undergo  in  New 
Ywrk.  "  I  remark,"  says  Mr.  Breckinridge, 
"that  your  reasoning,  as  to  an  infallible 
'rule  of  faith,'  if  well  founded,  leads  us  to 
reject  every  system,  that  does  not  make  all 
men  perfect.  For  you  agree  that  Christ  has 
established  an  infallible  rule  to  guide  us  in 
matters  of  religion,  as  well  as  to  settle  dis- 
putes in  his  church.  You  argue,  that  a  rule, 
which  does  not  settle  disputes,  as  to  doctrine, 
is  fallible,  and  therefore,  not  Christ's  rule. 
Now,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  a  rule  that 
does  not  regulate  jiractice,  so  as  to  make  an 
end  of  sin,  and  make  men  perfect  here,  must 
be  a  fallible  rule."  This  reasoning  is  your 
own,  dear  Sir,  and  I  would  not  spoil  it  by  a 
single  word  of  comment. 

You  next  complain  that  I  should  have  ad- 
duced the  arguments  of  Volney,  Priestly, 
and  what  you  call  "  extreme  heresies,"  to 
show  the  inconclusiveness  of  your  reasoning, 
against  the  Catholic  doctrines.  Unitarians, 
Universalists,  &c.  (whom,  I  suppose,  you  in- 
tend to  designate  by  "extreme  heresies")  are 
the  legitimate  descendants  of  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith.  And,  if  every  man  has  a  right 
to  interpret  the  meaning  of  the  Bible  for  him- 
self, it  becomes  something  like  nonsense  in 
the  ear  of  reason,  for  one  Protestant  to  call 
the  opinions   of  another  Protestant  by  the 


56 


name  of  "heresy."  What  do  they,  but  in- 
quire, think,  and  exercise  the  privilege 
which  you  proclaim  to  be  the  right  of  all. 
Will  you  have  them  to  stop  thinking  at  the 
point  where  Presbyterians  have  halted? 
Will  you  say  to  the  ocean  of  their  thought; 
"  hitherto  thou  shalt  come,  but  no  farther?'''' 
That  ocean  is  too  boundless  to  be  hemmed  in 
by  the  "  Westminster  Confession."  Its 
course  is  onward — and  the  present  condition 
of  Protestants  in  Germany,  where  infidelity 
is  preached  from  the  pulpit,  and  proved  from 
the  Bible,  by  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith, 
shows  how  it  can  sweep  away  the  feeble 
remnants  of  Christianity,  that  were  spared 
by  the  first  Reformation. 

Your  frequent  charges  against  the  Catholic 
church,  for  "  restricting  the  freedom  of  the 
press;" — "claiming  the  government  of  king- 
doms :" — "  establishing    the  inquisition  :" — 
"  burning  heretics:" — "  encouraging  extended 
and  bloody  massacres  of  the  Waldenses  and 
Huguenots,"  and  a  hundred  other  sins  which 
she  never  committed,  certainly  do  not  prove 
the  "  Protestant  rule  of  faith,"  nor  disprove 
that,  which  Christ  established.  Childhood,  full 
grown  ignorance,  grey-haired  prejudice,  and 
last,  (though  not  least,)  ladies  of  delicate  nerves, 
may  be  frightened  by  these  tales  of  horror  in- 
conceivable !     But  to  these  their  effect  will  be 
exclusively  confined.    I  dislike  recrimination, 
but  you  will  not  take  it  amiss,  if  I  remind  you, 
inter  nos,  that  the  standard  of  Presnyterian- 
ism  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  in 
the  nineteenth  century,  makes  it  a  sin  against 
the  second  commandment  of  God,  "  to  tole- 
rate a  false  religion."     It  is  true  the  General 
Assembly  have  not  as  yet  told  us,  what  reli- 
gions are  to  be  regarded  as  "false."     But  I 
cannot  well  understand  how  the  Presbyterian 
conscience   can  be  at  peace   with   itself,   or 
*'  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,"  as  long  as 
it  is  burthened  with  this  sin  of  toleration. 
In  my  last  letter,  in  order  to  exhibit  the  delu- 
sion of  the  Protestant   rule  of  faith,  I  intro- 
duced an  uneducated  ''Collier,"  to  whose  ex- 
perience   and  judgment  I  refer  the   reader. 
You  pass  by  the  argument  contained  in  the 
paragraph,    and    seem    to    be    shocked    at 
the  profanity  ot    the    poor  man's  language. 
But,  Rev.  Sir,  these  are  times   when  men's 
minds  must  be  braced  up,  so  as  not  to  be 
shocked   at  any   consequence   flowing  from 
the  common  fountain  of  Protestant  error,  in- 
consistency and  extravagance:    I   mean,  the 
pretended  competency  of  private  opinion  to 
interpret   the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  voiceless  pages  of  the  Bible.     I  defy  any 
man,  reasoning  from  the  same  premises,  to 


arrive  at  a  conclusion  different  from  that  of 
the  "Collier."  You  have  not  condescended 
to  show  us  how  it  is  even  possible  to  escape 
it.  You  represent  me  as  calling  the  Bible  a 
fallible  guide,  because,  as  you  say,  "  men 
may  and  will  wrest  it."  No,  Sir — but  I  am 
arguing  against  the  fallible  and  fallacious 
principle  of  private-interpretation,  by  which 
the  Bible  is  degraded  into  a  a  book  of  con- 
tradictions, and  made  to  decide  for  and 
against  even  the  most  sacred  points  of  doc- 
trine— Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  or- 
der of  Bishops,  the  existence  of  hell,  the 
Divinty  of  Christ,  and  the  Trinity  of  Persons 
in  the  Godhead  !  All  this  was  illustrated, 
in  the  case  of  the  Collier.  Now,  although  you 
admit  that  "  men  may  and  will  wrest  it,"  I 
do  not  see  why  one  denomination  of  Protes- 
tants may  not  be  as  sincere  in  its  opinions 
about  the  meaning  ef  the  Bible  as  another. 
And  as  "the  Protestant  rule  of  faith"  is  in- 
capable of  producing  any  thing  but  opinions, 
I  do  not  see,  by  what  right,  you  are  war- 
ranted in  saying  that  those,  who  differ  from 
you  '•'•wrest  the  Scriptures?'''' — Albeit,  the 
question,  after  three  hundred  years,  remains 
still  to  be  settled — but  one  thing  is  certain, 
that  Jesus  Christ  never  revealed  an  opinion — 
in  the  Bible,  or  out  of  it. 

I  have  no  farther  explanation  to  give  re- 
specting the  blessing  of  "beasts''  in  Rome 
or  elsewhere — except  that  the  inhabitants  of 
the  "  seven  hills,"  would  I  suppose,  be  very 
much  hurt,  if  they  were  to  find  out  that  you 
disapprove  of  it.  But  I  would  simply  ask 
you  to  gratify  the  public  with  the  document, 
in  which  you  find  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  has 
pronounced  "anathemas  against  living  men 
who  circulate  the  Bible.''' 

You  have  a  brief,  but  comprehensive  reply 
to  the  departure  from  the  Protestant  Rule, 
which  I  pointed  out  in  the  "  Confession  of 
Faith,"  on  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism,  the 
Sabbath  and  the  Ordination  of  Ministers. 
"You  find  satisfactory  proof  for  all  three  in 
the  word  of  God:''  but  you  have  prudently 
declined  furnishing  the  public  with  a  sight 
of  it — not  even  a  reference!  This  is  a  sum- 
mary mode  of  conducting  a  controversy. 

If  I  have  succeeded  in  dissipating  the  va- 
pours, which  you  have  attempted  to  raise  be- 
tween the  mind  of  the  reader  and  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  '•'-f either  s,v 
and  permit  me  to  use  the  expression,  of 
common  sense,  in  support  of  the  "Catholic 
rule  of  faith"  in  my  last  letter,  then  your 
task  of  refutation  is  still  unaccomplished. 
I  do  not  accuse  you  of  any  intention  to  mys- 
tify the  question;  but  really  if  there  are  any 


57 


arguments  in  your  whole  five  columns,  I 
against  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  fits  /  had\ 
laid  it  down  and  vindicated  it,  they  are  so 
loosely  jointed,  that  I  could  hardly  com-  j 
press  them  into  tangible  form,  and  consisten- 
cy. They  are  like  spectres,  which  make  a 
transient'impression  on  the  organ  of  vision, 
but  elude  the  grasp,  that  would  attempt  to 
seize  or  hold  them  responsible.  Perhaps 
others  may  see  them  differently.  But  if  any 
man  will  assert,  that  vou  have  proved  the 
Protestant  rule  cf  faith,  or  disproved  the  ar- 
guments adduced  by  me,  in  support  of  the 
Catholic  principle,  1  have  only  to  say,  that 
I  do  not  envy  the  grade  of  his  intellect,  nor 
his  powers  of  logical  discrimination. 

I  only  regret,  that  you  do  not  grapple  close- 
ly with  the  question— that  you  do  not  plant 
the  fulcrum  of  your  reasoning  on  some  solid 
basis;  thatyou  do  not  say  with  that  manly  bold- 
ness, which  the  consciousness  of  a  good  cause 
usually  inspires— Sir,  the  Catholic  rule  of 
faith  is  false: — which  I  prove  thus,  It  is  ma- 
nifest, that  when  Christ  said};  "  Go  ye,  teach 
all  nations,  and  behold  I  am  with  you  all 
days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world;" 
his  meaning  was,  that  the  apostles  should  die 
"  without  successors"  in  the  ministry  of 
teaching — that  all  days,  and  forever,  signify 
till  the  *<  death  of  St.'  John"— that  when  the 
first  creed  says,  "  I  believe,  in  the  Holy  Ca- 
tholic Church,"  the  true  meaning  is,  I  be- 
lieve in  every  man's  private  interpretation  of 
the  Bible  but  chiefly  in  my  own."  Having 
thus  proved  the  main  position,  that  Christ 
did  not  establish  the   Catholic  rule  of  faith, 


you  could  easily  dispose  of  the  minor  difficul- 
ties. The  moral  phenomenon,  by  which  it 
happens,  that  all  Catholics  in  ullages  and  in 
all  nations  believe  the  same  identical  doc- 
trines, is  produced  manifestly,  not  by  the 
operation  of  their  rule  of  faith,  but  by  the 
magic  of  priestcraft,  the  terrors  of  the  inqui- 
sition and  the  moderate  tariff  on  the  commis- 
sion of  sin.  "Seven  shillings  and  sixpence 
for  killing  a  Father  or  mother!"  Only  think 
of  it!!  Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  hundreds 
of  millions  of  souls  that  belong,  or  have  be- 
longed to  thai  Church,  should  be  united  as 
one  family,  in  the  belief  of  the  same  tenets 
of  religion? — as  for  the  little  differences  of 
opinions,  which  grow  up  under  the  fostering 
protection  of  the  "  Protestant  rule  of  faith," 
touching  the  Divinity  of  the  Messiah,  fyc, 
you  might  glorify  them,  by  calling  them 
beautiful  evidences  of  Protestant/Veedom,  as 
contrasted  with  Catholic  subjugation  to  the 
"yoke  of  faith,"  which  renders  them  so  bigot- 
ed, that  they  all  think  alike. — "  The  liberty 
of  the  Gospel"  would  be  a  good  name. 

But  I  suppose  you  will  take  you  own  way, 
and  in  truth  I  do  not  claim  any  right  of  ei- 
ther dictation  or  direction  in  the  matter.  If 
you  have  nothing  further  to  say  against  the 
arguments  of  my  last  letter,we  may  return  to 
the  unfinished  condition  in  which  we  left  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith;  but  this  also  shall  be 
at  your  option,  for  I  wish  to  be  accommoda- 
ting, whilst  I  remain,  very  respectfully, 


Yours,  &c. 


Jno.  Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   8. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


New  York,  2\st  March,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Rev.  Sir:  Your  letter  of  March  15th,  run- 
ning far  into  the  seventh  column,  reached  me 
on  the  18th  inst.  It  is  hard  work,  you  find, 
to  meet  and  parry  stubborn  facts,  especially 
when  your  own  authors  and  formularies  are 
turned  against  you.  No  wonder  your  de- 
fence struggles  in  the  greatness  of  the  way, 

"And  like  a  wounded  snake,  drag's  its  slow  Jenglh  along-." 

I  regret  to  see  that  you  grow  less  courteous, 
as  well  as  more  feeble  and  prolix;  and  it 
would  seem  that  these  qualities  keep  pace 
with  each  other,  in  the  progress  of  the  dis- 
cussion. 

But  let  us  address  ourselves  to  the  question, 
viz.  The  claim  you  set  up  of  infallible  teach- 
ers as  the  successors  of  the  apostles.  In  my 
last  letter,  (and  I  think  with  some  clearness,) 
I  proved, 

I.  That  the  apostles  had  in  certain  respects 
no  sucessors.  Under  this  proposition,  it  was 
shown,  (see  letter,  No.  6.)  1st.  That  no  man 
could  be  an  apostle  who  had  not  seen  the 
Lord.  2d.  That  an  apostle  must  have  re- 
ceived his  commission  directly  from  Christ. 
3d.  Every  apostle  was  endowed  with  the 
power  to  work  miracles,  with  inspiration, 
(from  which  resulted  infallibility)  in  speaking 
and  writing ;  also  with  the  gift  of  tongues, 
so  as  to  speak,  untaught  by  men,  various 
languages;  and  even  the  power  to  enable 
others  to  work  miracles,  and  the  knowledge 
to  discern  spirits.  4th.  The  apostles  were 
not  to  be  stationary;  but  with  plenary  pow- 
er, went  from  nation  to  nation,  to  set  up  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord.  From  these  facts, 
supported  by  many  clear  Scripture  proofs,  it 
was  shown  that  in  these  extraordinary  re- 
spects, they  had  no  successors;  that  Christ 
intended  them  to  have  none;  and  that  it  was 
impossible  they  should  have  any,  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  case.  Wherefore,  as 
your  claim  to  infallibility  rests  on  the  notion 
of  succession,  it  falls  to  the  ground,  and 
with  it  your  rule  of  faith. 

Again,  II.  I  showed  that  if  the  Apostles 
had  successors,  then  they  must  all  have  had 


successors;  and  hence,  if  there  be  any  Pope* 
there  must  be  twelve  Popes;  and  if  any 
church  has  infallibility  upon  Apostolical  suc- 
cession, many  must  have  it. 

III.  If  their  successors  had  any  of  these 
miraculous  powers,  they  must  have  had  all 
of  them;  for  all  are  as  necessary  as  one. 
The  attempts  in  your  church  to  work  mira- 
cles, are  an  acknowledgment  of  this  princi- 
ple; while  the  failure  proves  that  the  power 
is  wanting.  To  the  last  two  arguments,  in 
particular,  I  anxiously  await  your  reply. 
As  yet  I  have  not  seen  any  thing  like  it. 

Excuse  me  when  I  say,  there  is  a  want  of 
candour  in  your  statement  of  this  argument. 
You  represent  me  as  holding  "that  the 
Apostles  had  no  successors."  This,  like 
your  quotation  from  Tertullian,  is  just  one 
half.  I  said,  "  then  the  conclusion  is  irre- 
sistible, that  the  Apostles  had  no  successors 
endued  with  extraordinary  powers  of  any 
kind.  But  we  hold  to  a  commission  still 
standing  and  binding,  which  reaches  to  the 
end  of  time!''''  (See  my  last  letter,  No.  6. 
middle  of  3d  column.)  I  still  say  that  the 
Apostles  had  no  infallible  successors — none 
such  as  you  claim — nor  have  you  met  one 
single  point  of  my  whole  argument  on  this 
subject.  Your  system,  among  other  ab- 
surdities, leads  to  this,  that  there  is  a  suc- 
cession or  foundations.  For  we  are  told 
(Ephes.  ii.  20.)  that  the  church  "is  built 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  Jlpostl.es  and 
prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the 
chief  corner  stone,"  and  thus  "  the  whole 
building  is  fitly  framed  together .-"  and  "other 
foundation  can  no  more  lay,  than  that  is 
laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ."  (1  Cor.  iii. 
11.)  Here  is  the  basis  of  truth;  the  only 
foundation  is  inspired  authority.  To  this, 
the  faith  of  every  Christian  must  look.  No 
authority  or  succession  can  come  in  between 
God's  people  and  the  Apostles,  as  the  Pope 
attempts  to  do.  The  Apostles  themselves 
still  live  in  this  foundation,  that  is,  in  their 
ifallible  writings;  and  they  have  no  suc- 
cessors in  an  office,  whose  force  never  has 
ceased,  and  whose  authority  will  never  ex- 
pire.   It  is  therefore   piling  foundation  on 


so 


foundation,  or  defending  the  absurdity  of  a 
succession  of  foundations,  when  you  claim 
to  inherit  their  infallibility.  But  you  ask, 
*'  pray  did  the  commission  to  teach,  all  na- 
tions, during  all  clays,  extend  only  to  those 
who  had  seen  the  Lord?  Did  it  also  expire 
with  the  last  Apostle?  If  it  was  discharged 
in  the  second  generation,  were  not  those  by 
whom  it  was  discharged,  in  so  much,  the 
regular  successors  of  the  Apostles?*'  I  an- 
swer, certainly,  the  commission  to  "  teach 
all  nations,"  and  "to  baptize  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,-'  runs  to  the  last  day  and  the  last 
man;  and  the  promise  of  the  divine  Redeem- 
er, "lo!  I  and  with  you  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world'' — is  faithful  and  un- 
failing, and  is  perpetually  realized  in  the 
experience  of  every  true  minister  of  the 
Gospel.  And  here  is  the  very  point  af  de- 
fect in  your  system.  You  confound  the 
standing  ministry  with  the  apostolical  office. 
The  Apostles  were  invested  with  an  extra- 
ordinary office,  in  which  they  were  to  have  no 
successors.  This  I  have  clearly  proved.  They 
also  transmitted  an  office,  which  is  standing 
and  ministerial.  Of  such  were  the  Elders  of 
Ephesus,  (Acts,  XX.  17  and  28)  to  whom 
the  apostle  Paul  said,  "Take  heed  there- 
fore unto  yourselves,  and  unto  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  over- 
seers, to  feed  the  Church  of  God,  which  he  hath 
purchased  with  his  own  blood."  To  this 
also  allusion  is  made,  in  2  Tim.  ii.  2. 
"  And  the  things  that  thou  has  heard  of  me 
among  many  witnesses,  the  same  commit 
thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to 
teach  others  also."  Here  three  links  in  the 
chain  of  this  standing  ministry  are  distinct- 
ly recognised.  The  office  is  ministerial  and 
pastoral,  not  apostolical;  and  the  work  is  to 
publish  the  Gospel — salvation,  and  to  feed 
the  flock  of  Christ.  But  you  profess  to  find 
an  insuperable  difficulty  in  the  want  of  in- 
fallibility in  these  teachers;  and  your  grand 
corrective  is,  that  as  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles, you  secure  this  infallibility.  Now  let 
us  look  at  this  point.  On  your  plan,  every 
preacher  or  teacher  must  be  infallible. 
When  Mr.  Hughes,  for  example,  addresses 
his  flock,  either  he  is  infallible,  or  else  he 
may  err;  for,  if  he  be  not  infallible,  when  he 
interprets  Scripture,  why  may  he  not  err? 
Does  he  refer  you  to  Rome  and  the  Pope? 
But  "  it  is  not  a  doctrine"  he  tells  us  "of  the 
church  that  the  Pope  is  infallible." — Does  he 
refer  you  to  the  Pope  and  council?  They  have 
not  met  for  270  years !  And  prior  to  that, 
for  many  centuries,   their  decrees,  &c.  fill 


volumes.  Then  Mr.  Hughes  in  Philadel- 
phia, and  every  priest  in  the  whole  world,  is 
to  interpret  the  Bible  by  these  voluminous 
written  decrees.  Either  then  Mr.  Hughes  is 
infallible,  (which  he  disclaims.)  or  else  he 
fallibly  interprets  these  infallible  interpreta- 
tions of  the  Bible!  Now  I  ask  any  honest 
man  to  judge,  if  this  be  any  improvement  to 
the  system?  May  not  a  Protestant  minister 
as  well  go  the  written  Bible,  where  the  Apos- 
tles speak  infallibly  to  us,  and  directly  ex- 
pound the  inspired  word  to  the  people,  as 
Mr.  Hughes  and  all  other  Roman  Catholic 
priests  to  the  Bible  through  volumes  of  de- 
crees, bulls,  &c,  and  then  expound  on  pri- 
vate interpretation  this  same  Bible  at  last? 
If  the  Protestant  minister  be  fallible,  so  is 
Mr.  Hughes,  and  every  Roman  Catholic 
priest;  but  the  Protestant  goes  directly  to 
the  Bible,  whereas  Mr.  Hughes  wades  to  it 
through  all  the  decrees  of  his  councils,  falli- 
ble as  he  is;  and  he  has  first  to  interpret 
these  decrees,  and  then  to  interpret  the  Bi- 
ble, by  them!  I  proceed  to  remark  that  you 
virtually  yield  the  point  in  discussion,  by 
the  following  admissions:  "According  to  the 
Catholic  rule  of  faith,  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity are  not  abstract  speculations,  they  are 
positive  truths,  facts,  unchanged  and  unchan- 
geable, as  they  came  from  the  lips  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  inspired  Apostles.  But,  being 
public  truths  or  facts,  they  were  taught  by 
the  pastors  of  the  church,  and  believed  by 
the  people  in  all  countries,  and  in  every  cen- 
tury since  the  establishment  of  the  church. 
Consequently,  I  can  verify  them  with  the 
same  certainly,  which  I  have  that  such  an 
event  as  the  battle  of  Waterloo,  the  decapi- 
tation of  Charles  I.,  or  the  council  of  Nice, 
took  place  in  the  world.  In  neither  case  is  a 
divine  or  personal  infallibility  necessary. 
When  I  say,  that  2  and  4  make  6;  that 
Charles  X.  was  expelled  from  France;  that 
Luther  had  a  misunderstanding  with  Leo 
X.  that  John  Huss  was  burned  to  death  at 
Constance,  and  Michael  Servetus  at  Geneva; 
I  assert  propositions  which  are  infallibly 
true."  (see  Mr.  Hughes's  letter,  No.  5.)  And 
again — "  All  of  which,  (that  is,  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Roman  Catholic  church)  are 
facts,  with  which  the  principles  of  private 
interpretation  have  as  little  to  do,  as  it  has 
with  ascertaining  whether  or  not  the  city  of 
Philadelphia  was  founded  by  William  Penn," 
(see  Mr.    Hughes'  letter,   No.    7.)   If  then 

ALL  YOUR    DOCTRINES    ARE  POSITIVE  TRUTHS, 

and  public  facts,  as  certain  as  the  burning 
of  John  Huss,  or  the  occurrence  of  the  Re- 
formation, why  is  it  said  that  the  Scripture 


«$© 


is  an  obscure  book,  in  which,  without  an 
infallible  guide  every  man  mast  err?  And 
if  some  of  the  statements  in  the  Bible  are 
facts,  are  not  all  so?  Are  those  doctrines 
which  serve  your  purpose  clear  truths 
and  stubborn  facts,  and  all  the  rest  dark 
hieroglyphics,  and  floating  phantoms?  Is 
it  not  a  historical  fact  that  Christ  appointed  a 
ministry  and  promised  to  sustain  it?  Is  it 
.  not  also  a  historical  fact  that  Christ  died  for 
sinners;  that  he  taught  the  doctrine  of  rege- 
neration; the  doctrine  of  man's  depravity;  the 
doctrine  of  the  final  destruction  of  the  wicked; 
the  doctrine  that  Christ  is  the  only  head  of 
the  church;  the  doctrine  that  all  sin  is  mortal 
if  not  repented  of;  the  doctrine  that  the 
church  of  Rome  should  be  broken  off,  if  it  be- 
came corrupt;  (Epistle  to  the  Romans,  chap, 
ii.  18 — 25  verses.)  the  doctrine  that  it  it  is 
a  great  sin  to  make  and  worship  images;  the 
doctrine  that  none  but  God  can  pardon  sin; 
the  doctrine  that  the  cup  as  well  as  the  bread 
is  to  be  used  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Sup- 
per; the  doctrine  that  the  Bible  is  a  suffi- 
cient rule  of  faith;  the  doctrine  that  force  is 
never  to  be  applied  to  compel  conformity? 
I  say  are  not  all  these  public  truths,  and 
positive  facts?  And  if  so,  do  we  need  an 
infallible  guide  to  find  them  out,  or  under- 
stand them?  If,  as  you  say,  "a  divine  or 
personal  infallibility  is  not  necessary  to  veri- 
fy them,'"  any  more  than  to  verify  "  the 
facts  that  2  and  4  make  6;"  and  if,  like  it, 
they  are  "propositions  which  are  infallibly 
true,"  why  may  we  not  give  the  Bible  to  the 
people  as  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith?  And 
why  should  I  go  to  Rome  to  catch  light  from 
the  sickly  taper  of  the  Pope?  And  why 
should  he  sit  in  empty  state,  crying  out  '-the 
temple  of  the  Lord' — the  temple  of  the  Lord 
are  we,''  and  trim  this  dying  taper,  when 
the  Sun  of  Righteousness  has  arisen  upon 
the  earth  ?  Surely  this  system  "  decayeth 
and  ivaxeth  old,  and  is  ready  to  vanish 
away." 

I  have  a  single  thought  to  add,  to  this  part 
of  the  discussion.  It  is  suggested  by  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  the  Catholic  Herald  of 
Feb.  28th,  on  "  private  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture." "  We  will  recommend  them  (the 
people)  to  search  the  Scriptures,  Cor  they  bear 
testimony  of  Christ  and  his  church.  But 
when  they  have  once  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  Christ  and  his  church,  then  they  need  in- 
quire no  further,  with  a  view  of  making  new 
discoveries  in  matters  of  faith,  but  should 
become  like  little  children,  and  receive  the 
word  of  truth  in  the  humble  simplicity  of  faith 
from   those    whom  Christ  commissioned   to 


teach,  and  whom  he  commanded  us  to  hear 
and  obey.  The  words  '  search  the  Scrip- 
ture,^ '  seek  and  ye  shall  find,''  do  not  apply 
to  believing  Christians?"  I  pass  by  the  ex- 
traordinary position  that  Christians  need  not 
search  the  Scripture.  It  speaks  for  itself. 
But  the  writer  concedes  that  the  Scripture 
ought  to  be  searched  by  men  until  they  find 
out  Christ  and  the  true  church.  "  Here  they 
need  inquire  no  more."  But  I  would  ask, 
how  are  we  guided  in  our  search  until  then? 
By  what  aid  do  we  find  out  the  true  church? 
The  true  church  being  unknown,  is  there  any 
help  to  any  man  but  private  interpretation? 
So  then  every  man  must  at  least,  if  he  joins 
any  church,  or  chooses  any  religion,  do  it  by 
private  interpretation.  In  a  former  number 
I  presented  this  difficulty  to  you;  you  have 
not  met  it.  Let  me  remind  you  of  it  in  re- 
peating the  quotation  from  the  Rev.  Mr. 
M'Guire,  Amicable  Discussion,  page  134. 
He  owns,  that  "the  Catholic  has  only  to  ex- 
ercise his  private  judgment  upon  the  Scrip- 
ture proofs  of  the  authority  of  the  church; 
that  once  established,  the  Catholic  is  enabled 
to  make  an  act  of  faith  upon  divine  autho- 
rity." Others  call  it  "prudential  mo- 
tives," "  strong  probability,"  &c.  Now 
to  any  impartial  mind,  I  think  this  is  a  total 
surrender  of  your  rule  of  faith.  But  I  wish 
you  explicitly  to  avow  or  disavow  this  posi- 
tion, and  to  explain  to  us  this  principle. 
In  my  next  letter,  if  my  life  is  spared,  I 
design  to  enlarge  upon  the  Bible  as  the  rule 
of  faith,  and  to  meet  your  remaining"  objec- 
tions." I  had  wished  to  do  this  in  the  pre- 
sent number,  but  must  pass,  lastly,  to  men- 
tion some  things  of  a  miscellaneous  charac- 
ter. 

The  first  I  notice,  is  your  entire  silence 
about  the  quotation  from  Tertullian,  in 
which  I  convicted  you,  (excuse  the  word, 
for  you  force  it  upon  me,)  of  garbling  the 
passage,  and  leaving  out  one  half,  and  mak- 
ing the  other  half  prove  the  very  reverse  of 
what  the  father  meant.  Why  are  you  si- 
lent ?  You  are  silent  also  about  Bellarmine 
and  "fere  de  fide.^  In  your  previous  letter 
you  said,  "1  defy  you  to  quote  ten  lines  be- 
fore, and  ten  lines  after  it,  without  convict- 
ing yourself  of  what  is  not  becoming  a  min- 
ister of  the  Gospel." — The  reader  wiU  re- 
collect that  in  my  letter,  (No.  4.)  I  had 
quoted  a  few  words  from  Bellarmine,  to  il- 
lustrate other  proofs,  that  your  church 
claims  and  uses  the  right  to  make  new  arti- 
cles of  faith.  Now  let  us  for  a  moment  re- 
turn to  this  mooted  question,  especially  as 
you  informed  me  in  Philadelphia  that  Bellar- 


61 


mine  was  a  standard  author  in  your  church. 
Three  lines  above  the  quotation,  a  new  chap- 
ter begins;  so  that  seven  of  the  first  ten  lines 
you  call  for,  are  on  another  subject;  yet  I 
will  give  them,  if  you  wish  it.  It  would 
seem  then,  that  you  had  not  the  book,  and 
spoke  at  random,  not  knowing  what  was  there, 
and  what  not  there.  Here  follow  ten  lines 
below,  and  three  above  the  quotation — from 
~  beginning  of  the  chapter. 


t 


Prop.  Third.  The 
preme  Pontiff  is  simply  and 
absolutely  above  the  church 
universal,  and  above  a  ge 
neral  council,  so  that  he 
acknowledges  no  jurisdic- 
tion on  earth  above  himself. 
This  is  also  all  but  an 

ARTICLE  OF  FAITH,  and  is 

proved  ( 1 )  from  the  two 
preceding:  For  if  the  Pope 
is  the  head  of  the  church 
universal,  even  when  met 
in  assembly  together,  and  if 
the  church  universal  when 
thus  assembled,  has  no 
power,  on  the  ground  (sim- 
ply) of  its  totality;  it  fol- 
lows that  the  Pope  is  above 
a  council,  and  above  the 
church  and  not  contrary  (to 
either.) 

(2)  It  is  proved  by 
argument  founded  in  the 
Scriptures  :  For  all  the 
names,  which  in   the  Scrip 


ellarmine,  chap.  17.  lib. 


Terlia  propositio  :  sum- 
mits pontifex.  simpliciter,  8? 
absolute  est  supra  ecclesiam 
universqm,  el  supra  concili- 
um generale,  ita  ut  nullum 
in  terris  supra  se  judicium, 
agnoscat.  Ha?c  etiam  est 
fere  de  fide,  et  proba- 
tur  primo  et  duabus  praece- 
dentibus :  nam  si  Papa  est 
caput  ecclesiae  universae, 
etiam  simul  congregatse,  et 
ccclesia  universa  simul  con- 
gregata  non  habet  ullam 
potestatetn  ralione  sua?  to- 
talitatis  :  sequitur  Papam 
supra  concilium  esse,  et  su- 
pra ecclesiam,  non  contra. 


Secundo  probatur  rati- 
tione,  in  scripluris  fundata  : 
nam  omnia  nomina,  qua;  in 
scripluris  tribuuntur  Chris- 
to,  uncle  constat  eum  esse 
supra  ecclesiam,  eadem  om- 
nia tribuuntur  Pontific* :  ac 
priinum,  Christus  est  pater- 
familias in  domo  sua,  quae 
estecclesia.  Pontifex,  in  ea- 
dem, est  summus  oecono- 
mus,  id  est,  pater-familias 
loco  Christi.     Luc.  Pi.  42. 


I  here  pass  by  his  profaneness  in  saying, 
that  all  Christ's  titles  are  applied  in  the 
Bible  to  the  Pope;  and  also  his  weakness  in 
quoting  Luke  xii.  42,  as  proof,  when  in 
Luke  xii.  46-48.  (three  verses  below,)  his 
whole  system  is  exploded 

But  observe,  (1.)  The  author  expressly  de- 
clares the  opinion,  that  the  Pope  is  above  a 
general  council,  and  above  the  universal 
church.     (2.)  He    affirms    that  this  opinion 

is    ALMOST    AN    ARTICLE    OF    FAITH.         (3.)    In 

the  same  chapter,  and   on  the  same  subject, 

he  says,  "Quod  vero  concilium  hoc  rem  is- 

tam  non  definierit,  proprie,  ut  decretum  fide 

Catholica  tenendum,    dubium    est,    et    ideo 

non    sunt  proprie  heretici,    qui    contrarium 

sentiunt,  sed   a  temeritate  magna    excusari 

non  possunt."     But  whereas  the  Council  did 

not  strictly  define  this  matter,  as  a  deer  a 

'^ay 


to  be  held  by  the  Catholic  faith,  it  is  subject 
to  doubt,  and  therefore  they  are  not  proper- 
ly heretics,  who  maintain  a  contrary  opinion, 
yet  they  cannot  be  freed  from  the  charge  of 
great  temerity. 

Is  it  not  plain  then,  that  an  opinion  may 

be  ALMOST  AN  ARTICLE  OF  FAITH  ;  01*  DOUBT- 
FUL, (in  your  unchangeable,  infallible 
church,)  and  that  it  may  grow  into  an  ar- 
ticle;— and  be  so  near  an  article  that  it  is 
doubtful  whether  it  be  one  or  not;  and  so 
an  article,  that  he  who  rejects  it,  is 
almost  a  heretic.  And  now,  (begging 
yon  not  to  be  silent  about  this  in  your  next 
letter,)  I  ask  you,  if  you  had  not  Bellarmine 
in  your  possession,  how  could  you  deny  so 
positively  that  the  author  bore  such  a  testi- 
mony; ami  how  could  you  venture  to  level 
such  a  charge  at  me  while  ignorant  of  what 
he  said?  But  if  you  had  his  work  before 
you,  then  you  must  not  complain,  if  retort- 
ing with  proof  your  groundless  charge,  I 
say,  "  You  are  convicted  of  what  is  not  be- 
coming a  minister  of  the  Gospel."  If  you 
had  the  work  before  you,  how  can  these 
things  be  explained?  I  leave  you  to  solve 
the  problem,  and  shun,  if  you  can,  so  pecu- 
iar  a  dilemma. 

I  would  next  recall  you   for  a  moment  to 
le  vtjured  words  stafuere  articulos fidei.     I 


1 


tures  are  applied  to  Christ,  |SUnposed  myself  addressing  one  sufficiently 
proving  him  to  be  above  |"a  g^ar  to  £n0M,  or  to  search  out  the  real 


the  church,  are  in  like  man- 
ner applied  to  the  Pontiff; 
as  first,  Christ  is  Pater- 
familias— head  of  the  family 
in  his  own  house,  which  is 
the  church.  The  Pontiff  is 
high  steward  in  the  same, 
that  is,  he  is  Pater-familias 
in  the  place  of  ChrisJ. — . 
Luke  xii.  42. 


meaning  of  these  words.     I  assure  you  the 
omission  of  the  word  "new"  had   no  design 
in  it.      You  know  as  well  as  I  do,  that   "  to 
constitute  new  articles,'"  and  "  to  constitute  ar- 
ticles'''' convey  essentially  1||j|e  same  idea.  Dr.  . 
ohnson   defines  "  ciinsU\\^9'7o^giv?fo?rtiat 
'xistence,  to  make  any  thing  what  it    is,   to 
erect,  &c      And  this  is  what  I  meant  to  sa'- 
that  the  Pope  condemned   Luther  for  df 
ing,  "  that  the  Pope  or  Council  had  o 
to  constitute,"  (to  give  formal  existed  Presby- 
erect)  articles,  or  make  new  artictinst  the  se- 
But  it  is  in  vain  by  shallow  ar~  a  false  reli- 
ticism,  to  attempt  to  shun  ♦' please  to  men- 
word  "  statuerc."     Bailey  this  passage.     In 
up;  to  raise;  erect,  app*i  Book   1.  Chap.   1. 
The  word,    I    am   w-  as  follows:  "they  are 
shades  of  meanin<r//imon>  that  God  alone  is 
to  say,  a  learner,cei  ar>d  therefore  they  consi- 
when  'you    tr  °f  private  judgment,  in  all 
faith"  or  'a*  respect    religion,    as   univer- 
a  mere  unalienable."     Confession  of  Faith, 
Thus  ^nap.  3d  sec.      "  Civil  magistrates  may 
/1((V-A  the  least  interfere  with  matters  of  faith 
y-chey  should  give  no  preference  to  any  one 
denomination  of  Christians  above  the  rest — ■ 
and     ecclesiastical     persons    should    /    '■•v 
free,  full,  and  unquestioned  liberty."/ 


62 


te,  meo  agro.''    Who  planted  thee  (a  tree,  you 
would  say  defined)  in  my  soil? 

You  next  bring  to  view,  one  of  a  multitude 
of  my  •' objections,'' (from  letter  4)  under 
the  head  of  "  unwarrantable  liberties,  taken 
by  the  church  of  Rome,  with  the  word  of 
God."  In  exposing  the  utter  fallibility  of 
your  rule,  I  showed  your  additions  to  the 
word  of  God;  you  pass  them  by;  I  showed  a 
nous  fraud  of  your  church:  you  pass  it  by: 
referred  to  the  twelvenew  articles  of  faith  ad- 
ded by  the  council  of  Trent;  you  pass  them' 
by:  I  referred  to  the  astonishing  corruptions 
and  perversions  of  your  translations  of  the 
Bible;  you  pass  them  by:  but  you  faintly  ral- 
ly, with  "a  word  of  contradiction,"  as  to  the 
charge  that  you  mutilate  the  second  com- 
mandment. When  I  speak  of  the  second 
commandment,  I  mean  that  which  forbids 
images  and  idolatry — and  not  the  third  which 
your  church  makes  the  second.  As  you  are 
silent  about  the  various  versions  in  which  I 
stated  that  the  second  commandment  was 
clipped  or  omitted,  shall  we  infer  that  you 
admit  it?  And  again  as  to  "the  Doway 
Catechism,  "and  "the  poor  man's  Catechism," 
what  have  you  to  say  in  defence  of  the  mis- 
translation of  the  passage,  "thou  shall  not 
bow  down  thyself  to  them,"  into  this,  li  thoul 
shalt  not  adore  or  worship  them? ' 'j&i ruP 
now  I  ask,  will  you  deny  that  the  "  catechis- 
mus  ad  Parochos"  runs  thus:  "  PrimuW 
praeceptum  Decalogi,  &c.  Non  habebis 
Deos  alienos  coram  me,  (Here  ends  the  first 
commandment.)  2d.  Non  fades  tibi  sculpti- 
,bile,&.c.  &c;  and  these  four  words  are  all 
V^hat  are  quoted Pj^The  translations  of  the 
catechism' Info  Various  languages  carry  out 
the  same  plan,  in  substance.  The  Montpel- 
lier  catechism  adds  a  few  more  words.  The 
Irish,  drops  the  whole.  "The  Christian 
doctrine,"  by  the  Rev.  Father  James  Ledes- 
ma,  published  by  permission  of  the  "  supe- 
riors," wholly  omits  the  second,  and  for  the 
fourth  commandment,  has  this  "Remember 
to  sanctify  the  Holy  days."  Please  then  ex- 
cuse me  from  "making  corrections," — until 
your  church  corrects  her  treatment  of  the 
word  and  law  of  God. 

Such  is  your  Diarrhoea  verborum,  that  I 
fear  I  shall  weary  the  indulgent  reader  in 
the  circuit  of  reply;  but  as  we  are  upon 
proofs  which  you  challenge,  it  must  be  done. 
Then  as  to  Bellarmine,  I  still  insist  that  he 
makes  the  Pope,  living,  infallible  law;  and 
you,  not  /,  pervert  his  reasoning.  He  argues 
that  the  Pope  cannot  err  in  decretis  fidei,  in 
decrees  as  to  faith,  neque  in  praeceptis  morum, 
nor  in  moral  precepts.    His  reasoning  is  this: 


The  church  is  bound  to  submit  to  the  Pope 
because  he  cannot  err;  and  while  he  owns 
that  in  the  judgment  of  the  church  virtue  is 
good,  and  vice  evil,  yet  whatever  the  Pope 
enjoins  is  law;  and  the  subversion  of  moral 
principle  would  not  be  such  an  evil  as  the 
subversion  of  his  infallibility.  In  other 
words,  the  Pope  must  be  followed,  right  or 
wrong.  But  I  would  ask  you  in  your  next 
letter  to  explain  what  Pope  Nicholas  says-" 
the  Emperor  Michael,  (quoted  in  may  last 
The  Pope  is  a  God,  and  therefore  m 
cannot  judge  him. 

What  will  you  say  to  the  following?  Im- 
mutat  substantialem  rei  naturam,  puta  faci- 
endode  illegitimo  legitimum.  Durand,  1.50. 
He  (the  Pope,)  can  change  the  very  nature  of 
a  thing  for  example ;  he  can  make  that  law- 
ful, which  is  unlawful.  Habet  plenitudinem 
potestatis,  et  supra  jus  est.  Gibert,  2.  103. 
He  possesses  plentitude  of  power,  and  is 
above  law.  He  is  then  above  law,  can 
change  law,  and  transmute  right  into  wrong, 
and  wrong  into  right;  is  in  a  word,  "a  God 
on  earth,"  even  "our  Lord  God,  the  Pope." 
It  is  indeed  a  desperate  escape  you  make, 
from  these  profane  authorities,  to  compare 
'this  deification  of  the  Pope,  with  the  amiable 
hyperbole  of  a  grateful  people,  who  some- 
times in  the  fervour  of  their  praise,  may  have 
said,  "the  godlike  Washington."  Wash- 
ington is  called  godlike;  I  will  not  defend 
it;  the  Pope  is  called  God.  Washington 
made  so  such  pretensions;  he  bowed  to  the 
laws,  which  under  God,  his  unparalleled 
courage  and  wisdom  had  done  so  much  to 
establish.  The  Pope  usurps  the  rights  of 
|£he  people,  and  the  seat  of  the  Saviour,  and 
wojjld  sit  enthroned  on  the  riches  of  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel.  In  a  word,  your 
infallible  church  thus  speaks  of  the  Pope, 
and  your  infallible  Pope  loves  to  have  it  so. 
Never  then  join  together  again,  names  and 
pretensions  so  dissimilar,  and  so  discordant. 

We  come  next  to  the  subject  of  the  vali- 
dity, or  rather  invalidity  of  oaths,  in  the 
Roman  Church.  By  your  own  admission 
then,  "  Ecclesiastical  utility  makes  it  right 
to  violate  an  oath."  "He  that  swearelh  to 
his  own  hurt,  and  changeth  not,"  is  David's 
good  man.  But  here  is  the  old  Popish 
maxim,  that  the  end  justifies  the  means.  The 
interest  of  the  church  must  be  regarded, 
though  a  lawful  oath  lie  in  the  way.  You 
talk  of  the  "factious  minority"  of  an  infalli- 
ble Council,  and  of  the  Council  of  Basle  as 
"a  spurious  assembly."  What  will  you 
say  of  the  Council  of  the  4th  Lateran  de- 
creeing, that  the  subjects  of  heretical  sove- 


ex.t 


63 


reigns  were  freed  from  their  allegiance? 
What  of  the  Council  of  Constance  declaring 
in  solemn  sessions,  that  Emperors,  cy-c.  fyc. 
are  not  bound  to  keep  their  promise  of  secu- 
rity made  to  heretics,  or  to  persons  accused 
of  heresy.  Here  observe  that  the  heretic 
may  be  ever  so  innocent  of  any  crime  against 
the  state — but  his  "heresy"  in  doctrine  is 
enough,  (as  in  the  case  of  John  Huss,)  to 
tear  him  from  the  civil  power,  to  be  tried  by 
the  church,  and  then  handed  back,  to  be  put 
to  death  by  the  same  civil  power. 

And  now  let  me  gratify  you,  in  the  call 
for  the  document,  "in  which  the  Pope 
anathematizes  the  living  men  who  circulate 
the  Bible."  In  using  the  word  "  anathema" 
it  may  be  that,  from  want  of  familiarity  with 
the  weapon,  I  may  have  not  applied  it  in  its 
strictly  technical  meaning;  but  if  the  spirit  of 
the  following  sentences  is  not  that  of  an 
anathema,  I  should  scarcely  know  whither  to 
go  in  search  of  such  a  spirit.  "  The  Pwpe*^ 
circular  letter,"  May  3d,  1824.  "It  is  no 
secret  to  you  venerable  brethren,  that  a  cer- 
tain society,  vulgarly  called  'the  Bible  So- 
ciety,' (audaciler  vagari)  is  audaciously 
dispreading  itself  through  the  whole  world. 
After  despising  the  traditions  of  the  Holy 
Fathers,  and  in  opposition  to  the  well  known 
decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  (session  the 
fourth,  on  the  publication  and  use  of  the 
sacred  books,)  this  society  has  collected  all 
its  forces,  and  directs  every  means  to  one 
object,  to  the  translation,  or  rather  to  the 
perversion,  of  the  Bible  into  the  vernacu- 
lar languages  of  all  nations!  From  this  fact, 
there  is  strong  ground  of  fear,  lest,  as  in 
some  instances  already  known,  so  likewise 
in  the  rest,  through  a  perverse  interpreta- 
tion, there  be  framed  out  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  a  Gospel  of  man,  or,  what  is  worse, 
a  Gospel  of  the  Devil."  (St.  Jerome,  chap. 
1.  Epis.  ad  Galat.) 

Alexander,  Emperor  of  Russia,  having 
tried  Bible  Societies  for  a  short  time,  found 
the  spirit  of  liberty,  and  the  power  of  light 
so  great,  that  he  must  abolish  them,  or 
lose  his  crown.  And  he  issued  his  royal 
ukase,  putting  them  down  in  his  empire. 
How  expressive  is  this  coincidence! 

In  China  preachers  of  the  cross  are  not 
tolerated.  The  Jesuits  found  their  way  by 
intrigue  into  the  empire  ;  but  they  aimed  at 
the  throne  more  than  the  souls  of  the  peo- 
ple;— and  still  farther  threw  back  the  hopes 
of  the  empire.  The  illustrious  Dr.  Morrison, 
has  translated  the  entire  Bible  into  that  per- 
plexing and  interminable  language.  And 
they  are  a  reading  people j  and  in  this  way 


alone  can  they  be  now  enlightened.  Yet 
every  Bible  Society,  and  translation,  and 
donor,  is  cursed  for  this  labour  of  love. 
How  well  for  China,  and  for  us^  that  while 
the  Pope  curses,  the  Saviour  smiles  upon  the 
heavenly  work  of  giving  the  Bible  to  every 
creature. 

Perhaps  it  may  also  "gratify"  you  to  see 
some  more  recent  news  from  Rome.  It  is 
found  in  the  Pupe's  Encyclical  Letter,  lately 
sent  forth.  He  tells  his  Bishops  all  over  the 
world,  "  that  now  is  the  hour  and  the  power 
of  darkness;  yes,  the  earth  is  in  sorrow  and 
perishes;  the  chair  of  the  blessed  Peter  in 
which  we  sit,  where  Jesus  Christ  has  laid  the 
foundation  of  his  church,  is  violently  shaken, 
and  the  bonds  of  unity  are  weakened  and 
broken  everyday."  He  calls  it,  "an  absurd 
and  dangerous  maxim,  or  rather  the  raving  of 
delirium,  that  it  is  proper  to  allow  to  every 
man  liberty  of  conscience."  He  calls  the 
liberty  of  the  press,  "  that  fatal  license  of 
which  we  cannot  entertain  sufficient  horror;'''' 
4-and  brings  against  the  license  of  unfetter- 
ed printing,  the  Apostolical  practice,  of  pub- 
licly burning  evil  books! — And  such  is  the 
Head  of  the  Universal  Church — seated  in  his 
tottering  chair,  amidst  the  gathering  ruins  of 
his  hierarchy;  complaining  of  the  freedom  of 
the  Press,  and  denouncing  the  spirit  of  the 
age!  In  vain  does  he  murmur,  and  in  vain 
denounce.  The  thunders  of  the  Vatican  no 
longer  cause  kings  to  tremble,  and  nations 
to  bow  down  at  the  haughty  Pontiff's  feet. 
Like  aged  Priam,  in  the  sacking  of  Troy,  he 
grasps  a  useless  sword: 

'':  Urbis  ubi  captae  casum,  convulsaque  vidit 
Limina  teclorum,  et  medium  in  penetralibus  hostem, 
Anna  di  usenior  desueta  treruentibus  aevo 
;Circumdat  nequidquam  humeris,  et  inutile  ferrum 
Cingilur." 

It  is  wholly  new  to  me  that  uthe  Presby- 
terian Church  makes  it  a  sin  against  the  se- 
cond commandment  to  tolerate  a  false  reli- 
gion." In  your  next  letter  please  to  men- 
tion where  you  find  this  this  passage.  In 
the  form  of  government,  Book  1.  Chap.  1. 
Sect.  1,  you  will  find  as  follows:  "they  are 
unanimously  of  opinion,  that  God  alone  is 
Lord  of  conscience,  and  therefore  they  consi- 
der the  right  of  private  judgment,  in  all 
matters  that  respect  religion.,  as  univer- 
sal and  unalienable."  Confession  of  Faith, 
xxiii.  chap.  3d  sec.  "  Civil  magistrates  may 
not  in  the  least  interfere  with  matters  of  faith 
— they  should  give  no  preference  to  any  one 
denomination  of  Christians  above  the  rest — 
and  ecclesiastical  persons  should  '^v 
free,  full,  and  unquestioned  liberty." 


04 


In  contrast  with  the  above,  let  me  point 
you  to  the  following  decrees  of  the  great  La- 
teran  council,  held  by  Pope  Innocent  III. 
A.  D.  1215,  at  which  were  present,  2  Patri- 
archs, 70  Metropolitans— 400  Bishops,  and 
812  abbots,  priors,  &c.  besides  imperial  am- 
bassadors, &c.  In  this  infallible  general  coun- 
cil, it  was  decreed  as  follows:  (1  have  the 
original  before  me,  but  for  want  of  space 
give  the  translation.) 

3d  Chapter.  "  We  excommunicate  aftdan- 
ethematize  every  heresy  extollingitself  against 
this  holy,  orthodox,  Catholic  faith  which  we 
before  expounded,  condemning  all  heretics 
by  what  names  soever  called.  And  being  con- 
demned, let  them  be  left  to  the  secular  pow- 
er, or  to  their  bailiffs,  to  be  punished  by  due 
animadversion.  And  let  the  secular  powers 
be  warned  and  induced,  and  if  need  be  con- 
demned by  ecclesiastical  censure,  what  offi- 
ces soever  they  are  in,  that  as  they  desire  to 
be  reputed  and  taken  for  believers,  so  they 
publicly  take  an  oath  for  the  defence  of  the 
faith,  that  they  will  stud}  in  good  earnest  to 
exterminate,  to  their  utmost  poiver,  from  the 
lands  subject  to  their  jurisdiction,  all  heretics 
denoted  by  the  Church;  so  that  every  one, 
that  is  henceforth  taken  into  any  power,  ei- 
ther spiritual  or  temporal,  shall  be  bound  to 
confirm  this  chapter  by  his  oath."  "  But  if 
the  temporal  lord,  required  and  warned  by 
the  church,  shall  neglect  to  purge  his  terri- 
tory of  this  heretical  filth,  let  him  by  the 
Metropolitan  and  Comprovincial  Bishops  be 
tied  by  the  bond  of  excommunication;  and  if 
he  scorn  to  satisfy  within  a  year,  let  that  be 
signified  to  the  Pope,  that  he  may  denounce 
his  vassals  thenceforth  absolved  from  his 
fidelity,  (or  allegiance,)  and  may  expose  his 
country  to  be  seized  on  by  Catholics,  who, 
exterminating  the  heretics,  may  possess  it 
without  any  contradiction,  and  may  keep  it 
in  the  purity  of  faith,  saving  the  right  of  the 


principal  lord,  so  be  it  he  himself  put  no 
obstacle  hereto,  nor  oppose  any  impediment; 
the  same  law  notwithstanding  being  kept 
about  them  that  have  no  principal  lords.'' 
"  And  the  Catholics  that  taking  the  badge  of 
the  cross  shall  gird  themselves  for  the  exter- 
minating of  heretics,  shall  enjoy  that  indul- 
gence, and  be  fortified  with  that  holy  privi- 
lege which  is  granted  to  them  that  go  the 
help  of  the  holy  land." — "And  we  decree 
to  subject  to  excommunication  the  believers 
and  receivers,  defenders  and  favourers  of  he- 
retics, firmly  ordaining,  that  when  any  such 
"person  is  noted  by  excommunication,  if  he 
disdain  to  satisfy  within  a  year,  let  him  be 
ipso  jure,  made  infamous." 

Finally — I  find  in  an  accredited  Roman 
Catholic  writer,  the  following  sentence, 
which  goes  to  show,  that  no  means  are  spa- 
red in  order  to  bring  these  heretics  to  jus- 
tice! "  Admittuntur  ad  accusandum,  atque 
ad  ferendum  testimonium  etiam  infames;" 
that  is,  even  infamous  persons,  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  accuse  and  bring  testimony  (against 
heretics.) 

With  these  facts  submitted  for  your  con- 
sideration, I  for  the  present,  bid  you  fare 
well.  John  Breckinridge. 

(postscript.) 
I  present  through  you  to  Bishop Kenrick  the 
expression  of  my  sincere  regret  that  the  mis- 
take as  to  himself  was  ever  made.  A  most 
respectable  and  responsible  name  was  given 
me  as  authority;  and  it  was  not  until  I  had 
repeated  the  inquiry,  and  been  reassured  of 
the  truth  of  the  statement,  that  I  asked  you 
whether  it  were  true  orfalse.  Thisgentleman 
still  insists  that  such  a  warning  was  given  on 
the  day  named,  and  in  one  of  your  church- 
es in  Philadelphia,  by  a  Roman  Catholic 
Priest. 

Yours,  &c.  J.  B. 


CONTROVERSY N°.  9. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,   March  26,   1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — The  precept  of  the  Apostle, 
which  forbids  Christians  to  return  "railing 
for  railing,"  must  be  my  apology  for  not  no- 
ticing those  parts  of  your  last  letter,  which 
come  under  the  head  of  personality.  I  en- 
gaged in  this  discussion,  with  a  determina- 
tion to  use  only  the  legitimate  evidences  of 
religious  truth — such  as  are  furnished  by 
reason,  revelation,  and  history — and  I  am 
not  disposed,  under  any  provocation,  to  alter 
my  resolution. 

But  there  are  a  few  points,  on  which  you 
and  I  are  notoriously  at  issue;  and  it  is  ne- 
cessary that  these  points  should  be  settled, 
before  we  proceed  to  graver  matters. 

I.  In  jour  letter  No.  4.  you  quoted  three 
words  from  Bellarmine,  to  support  your  as- 
sertion, that  ivith  us  opinions  pass  into  doc- 
trines. I  said  in  answer  to  this,  that  Dr. 
Priestly  attempts,  in  his  history  of -early 
opinions,  to  disprove  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
by  similar  assertions — and  that  3-011  could  not 
quote  ten  lines  before,  and  ten  lines  after 
the  words  "  fere  de  fide,"  without  convict- 
ing yourself  of  what  is  not  becoming  a  min- 
ister of  the  Gospel.  You  have  endeavoured 
in  your  last  letter,  to  extricate  yourself  from 
this  position: — but  to  my  mind  you  have  only 
confirmed  it.  If  the  reader  will  take  the 
pains  to  examine  the  words  of  the  author, 
as  you  have  quoted  them,  he  will  see  the 
evidence.  Bellarmine  takes  up  the  matter, 
on  which  he  is  writing,  as  an  opinion;  he 
treats  it  as  an  opinion;  and  he  leaves  it  as 
an  opinion.  What  then  have  you  done  by 
the  quotation?  You  have  proved  that  Bel- 
larmine had  been  perverted,  when  his  words 
"  fere  de  fide"  were  quoted  to  show,  that 
Catholic  faith  is,  iilike  the  new  moon,  cres- 
cent," and  that  the  topic  on  which  he  was 
speaking,  was  "  a  probationer  for  a  seat 

IN    THE    CREED."       Now,     I     Would    ask    VOU, 

is  it  becoming  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  to 
pervert  an  author? — to  assert  that  he  said, 
what  he  never  said? — or  that  he  meant,  what 
he  never  meant?  This  is  precisely,  what 
the   quotation  establishes  against   you,  and 

K 


even    less    than   "ten  lines"    completes  the 
"  conviction." 

It  was  Cardinal  Richelieu,  I  believe,  who 
said  that  if  he  had  the  privilege  of  selecting 
three  lines  at  his  pleasure,  from  ah  author's 
book,  he  could  have  him  hanged  for  treason. 
And  we  all  know,  that  if  the  infidel  were  al- 
lowed to  select  three  words,  from  the  Psalms 
of  David,  as  you  had  done  from  the  writings 
of  Bellarmine,  he  could  make  it  appear,  that 
"  there  is  no  God"  and  that  the  Royal  Pro- 
phet was  an  Atheist.  But  in  either  case,  "ten 
lines  before,  and  ten  lines  after,"  would  "con- 
vict" the  offender,  of  what  might  be  tolerated 
in  politics,  or  scepticism,  but  is,  in  my  opi- 
nion, not  becoming  in  the  ministry  of  the 
Gospel.  You  beg  me  in  your  last  letter 
"  not  to  be  silent  about  this  matter,"  and  I 
have  only  one  word  more  to  say  upon  it.  It 
is  this:  that  I  will  meet  you  with  a  copy  of 
Bellarmine  on  any  day  youplease  to  appoint; 
and  submit  the  passage  to  any  sworn  inter- 
preter of  languages,  and  let  him  decide  its 
meaning.  If  he  says  that  Bellarmine's 
meaning  was  not  perverted,  in  your  first 
use  of  the  words  "  Ceve  de  fide,''  I  hereby 
pledge  myself  to  apologise  publicly.  But  if 
the  decision  be  against  you,  then  you  will  be 
candid  enough  to  acknowledge  the  perversion, 
and  leave  the  public  tojudgeof  the  cause,  which 
required  it.  The  decision  however  shall  be 
in  writing,  with  the  interpreter's  signature\ 
and  given  to  the  public. 

You  ask  me,  "if  I  had  not  Bellarmine  in 
my  possession,  how  could  I  deny  so  posi- 
tively, that  the  author  bore  such  a  testi- 
mony; and  how  could  I  venture  to  level  such 
a  charge  at  you,  while  ignorant  of  what  he 
said?''''  Answer.  Because  I  was  not  igno- 
rant "of  what  he  said."  2.  Because  the 
"  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church  prefixed 
stars  in  the  firmament  of  belief'  and  the 
transmutation  of  an  opinio?!  into  a  doctrine, 
(for  proof  of  which  you  referred  to  Bellar- 
mine,) would  be  the  raising  of  a  "new 
light"  a  species  of  religious  reformation 
which  Protestants  have  taken  into  their  own 
hands,  and  for  which  Catholics  have  neither 
the  talent,   inclination,  nor   authority.     So 


/ 


66 


much  then,  for  this  first  point  on  which  we 
are  at  issue. 

As  to  Luther's  proposition — I  showed  that 
you  had  interpolated  it,  by  inserting  a  word 
("  new,")  which  is  not  in  the  original.  That 
subsequently,  when  you  gave  the  original, 
you  left  the  word  "new,"  out  of  the  trans- 
lation; but  supplied  the  place  of  it  by  an  as- 
sertion which  was  unfounded  in  truth — viz. 
that  your  second  version  "  was  word  for  word 
what  you  had  said  before."  In  your  last  let- 
ter, you  assure  us  that  the  omission  of  the 
word  "  new,"  (in  the  second  version.)  had  no 
design  in  it.  That  is,  you  omit  the  interpola- 
tion, and  yet  take  pains  to  assure  our  readers, 
that  fortius  act  of  literary  honesty,  they  are  in- 
debted to  chance,  and  not  to  intention,  since 
"the  omission  had  no  design  in  it?"  But  then 
you  tell  us  that,  "statuere  arborem,''  means,  ac- 
cording to  Horace  "  to  plant  a  tree. "  Agreed. 
And  that  "  statuere  collumellan,"  according 
to  Cicero,  means,  "to  erect  a  little  pillar." 
Agreed,  again.  But  what  follows?  Will  you 
say  that  therefore  in  Luther's  proposition, 
"statuere  articulos  fidei"  means  "to  make 
new  articles  of  faith?"  And  yet,  on  this  pivot 
of  new  logic,  turns  the  only  defence,  you  have 
been  able  to  set  up  all  the  arguments  against 
of  my  last  letter,  touching  the  charges  in- 
volved in  the  point  at  issue.  It  is  not  a  tenet 
of  Catholic  belief,  that  either  the  Church,  or  the 
Pope,  or  both  together,  have  the  power  to 
create,  or  reject  doctrine:  to  make,  or  to 
destroy  one  single  article  of  faith.  Protes- 
tants alone,  who  are  responsible  to  no  rule 
of  faith,  except  to  their  individual  private 
opinion  of  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  may 
plant,  and  pluck  up  doctrines  at  their  plea- 
sure. Again,  therefore,  I  am  constrained  to 
say  that  your  charge  against  the  Catholic 
church  of  "claiming  the  right  to  make  new 
articles  of  faith,"  is  painfully  untrue." 
SQ.  You  had  said  that  the  "catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  gives  only  four  words  of 
the  second  commandment,  and  closes  with  an 
expressive etcsetera.v  Thisis"untrue."  And, 
can  you  imagine,  that  the  moral  sense  of  the 
community,  Protestant,  as  well  as  Catholic, 
does  not  hunger  for  an  explanation  of  the 
motives,  which  could  induce  a  "  minister  of 
kthe  Gospel,"  thus  to  bear  false  witness  against 

is  neighbour. 

M.  Yau  had  said,  that  in  the  Catholic 
church  there  are  no  less  than  three  systems 
of  doctrine,  on  the  "Pope's  supremacy." 
Now  every  Catholic  in  the  whole  World 
might  be  called  as  a  witness,  to  prove  that 
this  assertion  is  "untrue."  On  every  article 
of  faith,  the  Catholics  of  the  present,  and  of 


all  past  ages,  are  as  united  in  belief,  as  if  they 
all  dwelt  under  the  same  roof.  Is  it  not 
therefore,  humiliating  to  sincere  Protestants 
to  discover,  that  their  ministers  and  their 
books  are  obliged  to  use  such  means,  and  to 
confound  all  distinction  between  doctrine, 
discipline,  opinions,  and  local  customs,  in 
order  to  prove  disunion  of  belief  among  the 
Cotholics? 

5.  You  had  said,  that  it  is  a  principle  of 
Catholics,  "that  if  the  Pope  were  to  com- 
mand vice,  and  prohibit  virtue,  he  is  to  be 
obeyed."  For  this  assertion  you  referred  to 
Bellarmine.  In  reply,  I  quoted  the  passage 
of  Bellarmine,  in  my  last  letter,  which  shows 
that  he  stated  it,  as  the  impious  and  absurd 
consequence,  which  would  flow  from  the  opin- 
ion he  was  then  refuting.  You  did  not  at- 
tempt to  meet  the  quotation  with  any  thing 
stronger  than  assertion.  "I  still  insist" you 
say,  that  he  (Bellarmine)  makes  the  Pope  liv- 
ing infallible  law;  and  you,  not  /,  prevent 
his  reasoning."  Bellarmine  maintained,  as  a 
matter  of  opinion,  that  the  Pope,  in  his  official 
character  is  infallible.  Bossuet,  as  a  matter 
of  opinion  maintained  the  contrary;  both  were 
Catholics,  and  believed  as  a  matter  of  faith, 
the  Pope's  supremacy,  and  the  infallibility  of 
the  church.  And  here  is  the  maxim  of  St. 
Augustine,  exemplified,  "in  matter  of  faith, 
unity;  in  matters  not  of  faith,  liberty." — 
But  /insist  upon  it,  that  Bellarmine,  so  far 
from  saying,  that  "  the  Pope  can  make  vir- 
tue vice,  and  vice  virtue"  professes  to  prove 
the  erroneousness  of  the  opinion,  which  he 
was  then  refuting,  by  showing  that//«s  would 
be  the  impious  consequence  of  its  adoption. 
Thus  then  we  both  "  insist."  Who  shall  de- 
cide between  us?  I  say,  any  sworn  interpre- 
ter of  languages,  and  (stipulating  always, 
that  the  decision  be  published,  with  his  sig- 
nature, and  agreement)  I  challenge  you 
to  the  alternative.  How  then  can  you  "  bear 
false  witness  against  your  neighbour,"  by 
saying  that  Bellarmine  taught,  and  Catholics 
believe,  what  Bellarmine  never  taught,  and 
what  Catholics  do  not  believe? 

6.  You  had  stated,  that  according  to  the 
1 6th  canon  of  the  3d  Council  of  Lateran, 
"an  oath  contrary  to  ecclesiastical  utility,  is 
perjury,  not  an  oath."  I  answered,  that  this 
had  reference  to  unlawful  oaths,  which  were 
sometimes  pleaded  by  factious  minorities,  or 
individuals,  to  justify  their  rebellion  against 
the  choice  of  the  majority,  in  certain  cases  ot 
ecclesiastical  elections.  To  these  cases  ex- 
clusively, was  the  decision  of  the  Council 
limited.  Yet,  my  Rev.  opponent  spreads  it 
out   into  a  general  proposition  of  Catholic 


or 


doctrine.  Again,  therefore,  I  challenge  you 
to  abide  the  decision  of  any  sworn  interpre- 
ter. Here  then  are  six  different  heads,  on 
each  of  which  I  am  constrained  to  say  with 
regret,  that  you  have  asserteil  what  is  "un- 
true." It  is  useless,  therefore,  for  you  to 
calculate  on  the  verdict  of  our  readers  in  gen- 
eral, who  are  unacquainted,  as  you  know, 
with  the  language  and  the  books,  to  which 
you  have  referred,  with  such  bold  but  deceit- 
ful confidence.  You  will  please  consequent- 
ly to  clear  up,  as  I  give  you  an  opportunity  of 
doing,  these  six  topics,  before  you  expect  me 
to  pay  any  attention  to  your  silly  references. 
Of  these  you  have  already  made  too  many, 
for  the  honour  of  your  fame,  and  the  sanctity 
of  your  cause,  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  show 
the  public,  before  the  controversy  shall  have 
terminated. 

Judging  by  what  my  own  feelings  should 
be,  I  fear  that  these  remarks  are  calcula- 
ted to  give  you  pain;  but  remember  that 
you  have. left  me  no  alternative,- — except  to 
bring  the  matter  fairly  to  issue,  or  bow  in  ac- 
quiescence to  charges,  which  are  ultterly  "  un- 
true." My  own  principle  is,  never  to  assert, 
in  argument,  except  what  I  am  convinced  is 
true.  And  as  I  admit  the  possibility  of  mis- 
take, so,  in  such  a  case,  do  I  hold  myself 
ready  to  admit  opposite  evidence,  and  correct 
cheer/idly  any  statement  in  which  I  may 
happen  to  have  erred.  A  charge  of  this  kind 
is  brought  against  me  in  your  last  letter. 
"It  is  wholly  new  to  me"  you  say,  "that  the 
Presbyterian  church  makes  it  a  sin  against 
the  second  commandment,  to  "  tolerate  a  false 
religion."  At  this,  Rev.  Sir,  I  am  "  wholly" 
surprised.  Being,  like  myself,  something  of 
a  "  high  churchman,"  I  did  not  suppose  that 
anything  contained  in  the  "Confession  of 
Faith"  would  be  "new"  to  you. 

The  "tolerating  of  a  false  religion"  is  laid 
down  as  a  sin  against  the  second  command- 
menlin  "  Larger  Catechism,"  page  268,  of  tlie 
edition  published  by  Towar  &  Hogan,  in 
1829.  Perhaps  it  is  also  new  to  you— that 
in  order  to  show  how  great  a  sin  it  is,  refer- 
ence is  made,  in  the  same  page,  to  certain 
texts  of  Scripture,  in  one  of  which,  death  is 
specified  as  the  penalty  of  teaching  a  fade  re- 
ligion! I  shall  here  quote  the  text  "and  it 
shall  come  to  pass  that  if  anv  one  shall  yet 
prophesy"  (meaning  falsely)  "  then  his  father 
and  his  mother  that  begat  him,  shall  say  unto 
him,  thou  shall  not  live;  for  thou  speakest  lies 
inthename  oftheLord:''  Thus,  it  seems  that 
according  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  to 
the  Scriptures,  Presbyterians  look  upon  it,  as 
an  orthodox  sin,  to  "tolerate  a  false  religion." 


lTc?W 

icl^'t 


The  constitution  of  our  country,  however,  has 
decided  otherwise. 

This  same  Confession  of  Faith  teaches  that 
even  good  ivorks, done  by  "unregeneratemen" 
are  sinful.  (Chap.  xvi.  page  100,)  and  (chap. 
xv.  page  92)  it  tells  us,  "  there  is  no  sin 
so  small,  but  it  deserves  damnation" — from 
whence  it  would  follow,  that  it  an  "  unre- 
generate  man"  give  a  dollar  to  a  poor  widow, 
to  keep  her  from  perishing  in  the  winter,  he 
commits  a  sin,  and  deserves  to  be  damned 
for  it!  True,  the  texts  adds,  that  if  Ac  does 
not  do  it,  he  commits  a  '•'■greater  sin;v  by 
which  it  appears,  that  he  is  to  be  damned 
for  doing  it,  and  damned  for  leaving  it  un- 
done! And  yet  there  is  an  abundant  profa- 
nation of  sacred  texts,  to  prove  all  this,  on 
the  same  page!  You  refer  me  to  Chapter 
xxiii.  for  the  following  quotation,  in  your 
last.  "  Civil  magistrates  may  not  in  the  least, 
interfere  with  matters  of  faith,  they  should 
give  no  preference  to  any  denomination  of 
Christians,  above  the  rest — and  ecclesiastical 
persons  should  enjoy  free,  full  and  unques- 
tioned liberty."  I  have  not  found  any  such 
words,  in  the  reference.  But  in  the  very 
same  chapter  and  section,  I  find  the  follow- 
ing: "  He  (the  civil  magistrate)  hath  authori- 
ty, and  it  is  his  duty,  to  take  order,  that  uni- 
ty and  peace  be  preserved  in  the  church,  that 
the  truth  of  God  be  kept  pure  and  entire,  that 
all  blasphemies  and  heresies  be  suppressed, 
all  corruptions  and  abuses  in  worship  and 
discipline  prevented  or  reformed,  and  all  the 
ordinances  of  God  duly  settled,  administered 
and  observed.  For  the  better  effecting 
whereof,  he  hath  power  to  call  Synods,  to  be 
present  at  them,  and  to  provide  that  whatso- 
ever is  transacted  in  them,  be  according  to 
the  mind  of  God.  "  Westminster  Confes- 
sion, chap,  xxiii.  sec.  3.  p.  141.  Here  the 
k"  mind  of  God"  is  made  the  rule  of  just  pro- 
ceeding, and  the  civil  magistrate,  is  supposed 
to  be  on  such  terms  of  familiarity  and  confi- 
dence with  the  Almighty,  that  he  knoivs  what 
is  the  "mind  of  God,"  and  is  bound  to  see, 
that  matters  shall  be  regulated  accordingly. 
Still,  there  is  a  powerful  array  of  Scripture 
texts,  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  to  show 
that  all  this  is  right  and  true  according  to  the 
Bible!  Your  quotation,  and  mine,  founded 
on  the  same  reference,  differ  very  materially! 
Will  you  please  to  explain  the  disagreement? 

I  would  now  follow  you  through  one  or  two 
of  the  heads  of  what  I  suppose  you  intended 
as  argument  against  the  Catholic  rule  of 
faith.  But  really,  there  are  so  many  contra- 
dictions under  my  eye,  as  I  look  upon  the  first 
column  of  yourlast epistle, that  I  amat  a  loss  to 


68 


understand  whether  you  admit  or  reject  the  suc- 
cession from  the  Apostles  in  the  ministry  of 
teaching.  First,  you  say,  that  "  as  the  claim" 
(of  the  Catholic  Church)  "to  infaliibity  rests 
on  the  notion  of  succession,  it  falls  to  the 
ground,  and  with  it  our  rule  of  faith.''''  Next, 
you  say,  that  if  the  Apostles  had  successors, 
thena/Zmusthavehad  them,  and  as  there  were 
twelve  apostles,  so  there  should  be  exactly 
twelve  successors,  every  one  of  whom  should 
be  a  Pope!  Then,  these  successors,  if  there 
were  any,  must  be  able  to  work  miracles. 
And  then,  finally,  you  say  that  I  am  uncan- 
did  for  "representing  you  as  holding  that  the 
Apostles  had  no  successors.n,  And  a  little 
farther  still,  you  tell  us,  that  "you  hold  to  a 
commission  still  standing  and  binding  which 
reaches  to  the  end  of  time."  When  you  tell 
us  clearly  what  you  mean  by  all  this,  I  shall 
be  extremely  happy  to  meet  any  arguments 
you  may  be  disposed  to  put  forward.  In  the 
mean  time,  it  is  manifest,  that  I  cannot  drive 
you  from  a  position,  until  you  signify  exactly 
what  ground  you  mean  to  assume. 

The  whole  of  your  second  column  is  one 
continuous  train  of  misrepresentation.  You 
begin  by  asserting  that  on  my  plan  every 
preacher  or  teacher  "  must  be  infallible^!! 
And  taking  this  assumption,  unfounded 
though  it  be,  for  the  ground  work  of  your 
reasoning,  you  draw  your  own  consequences. 
But  as  "my  plan  tloes  not  require  every 
preacher  or  teacher  to  be  infallible,"  so  your 
deductions  founded  on  this  hypothesis  are 
gratuitous,  and  are  overturned  by  the  simple 
denial  of  both  the  premises  and  the  conclu- 
sion. "My  plan,"  as  you  call  it,  is  that 
Jesus  Christ,  after  having  proved,  tha-t  he 
was  sent  by  the  Father,  for  the  establishment 
of  a  divine  religion,  as  well  as  for  the  re- 
demption of  the  world,  instituted  a  ministry 
of  teaching  in  his  church — that  this  minis- 
try was  to  extend  with  the  duration  of  timd 
— that  it  was  the  channel  of  communication, 
by  which  the  knowledge  of  that  divine  reli- 
gion should  be  conveyed  to  all  nations,— 
and  that  to  this  ministry  of  teaching,  the  Son 
of  God  actually  promised  the  Spirit  of  Truth 
and  his  own  perpetual  presence  all  days,  even 
till  the  consummation  of  the  world.  This 
is  "my  plan:''  and  if  you  feel  yourself  com- 
petent to  overturn  it,  the  first  step  is — to 
state  it  correctly.  The  next  step  is,  to  take 
up  those  passages  of  the  Scripture  history, 
by  which  it  is  proved  that  this  ivas  the  means 
appointed  by  Christ,  and  show  that  instead  of 
proving  the  ministry  of  teaching,  they  prove 
on  the  contrary,  that  all  infallibility  ceased 
with  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  except  the 


infallibility  of  individual  opinion,  in  the  pri- 
vate interpretation  of  Scriptural  doctrine. 
It  would  be  the  mere  repetition  of  unanswer- 
ed arguments,  were  I  again  to  adduce  the 
proofs  and  reasoning  of  my  former  letters, 
on  this  subject.  It  is  useless  for  me  to  pub- 
lish the  same  proofs  of  the  Catholic  rule  of 
faith  in  every  letter.  If  you  had  taken  up 
my  arguments,  stated  them  in  my  own 
words,  suffered  them  to  enjoy  the  meaning 
which  they  possessed,  as  they  went  forth  from 
my  own  pen,  refuted,  or  attempted  honorably 
to  refute  them,  then  it  might  be  necessary  to 
review  the  testimonies  adduced  to  show  that 
Christ  established  the  immortal,  uniform, 
Catholic  teaching  of  his  Church,  as  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith.  I  refer  the  reader  to 
a  serious  perusal  of  my  letters  on  this  sub- 
ject, Nos.  5  and  7:  and  let  him  ask  himself, 
as  he  is  to  answer  at  the  last  day,  whether, 
according  to  the  evidences  furnished  on 
either  side,  the  testimonies  of  reason,  revela- 
tion and  history,  by  which  the  Catholic  rule 
of  faith  is  supported,  are  not  infinitely 
stronger  than  any  thing  you  have  been  able 
to  produce  in  favour  of  private  interpretation. 
I  appeal  to  that  reader  to  say,  whether  your 
letters,  thus  far,  instead  of  presenting  a  clear 
chain  of  controversial  reasoning  on  any  one 
subject,  are  not  an  "  olla-podrida"  of  crimi- 
nation, scandalous  anecdote,  fierce  assertion, 
and  general  evasion  of  the  question  on  which 
we  are  disputing. 

It  may  be  useful  to  state  again  the  subject 
now  under  discussion.  That  there  is  "an 
infallible  rule  of  faith,  appointed  by  Christ, 
to  guide  us  in  matters  of  religion,  and  to  set- 
tle disputes  in  his  Church"  is  agreed.  Now 
the  Catholic  church,  being  a  visible  and  per- 
petual society,  and  the  original  inheritor  of 
the  doctrines,  commissions  and  promises  of 
fJesus  Christ,  leans,  as  it  were,  on  the  arm  of 
her  Divine  founder; — trusts  in  his  promises, 
discharges  his  commission,  and  testifies  to 
all  nations,  during  all  days,  what  are  the  true 
doctrines,  of  which  it  was  said,  "  He,  that 
believeth  not,  shall  be  condemned."  Mark 
xv i.  16.  How  shall  we  know  what  we  must 
believe,  in  order,  to  escape  this  condemnation? 
That  Jesus  provided  an  infallible  means,  to 
arrive  at  this  knowledge,  is  admitted  by  my 
Rev.  opponent.  Then  it  must  be  either  the 
Catholic  or  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith.  That 
it  is  not  the  Protestant  principle,  appears  to 
me  one  of  the  clearest  moral  truths  that  ever 
presented  itself  to  human  understanding. 

1.  Because  that  principle  stabs  the  autho- 
rity of  the  sacred  volume,  which  it  professes 
to  cherish.     That  principle  makes  the  Bible, 


69 


as  efficient  to  overthrow,  as  to  uphold,  any 
doctrine  of  Christianity.  According  to  that 
principle,  no  man  can  be  certain  what  doc- 
trines Jesus  Christ  revealed  and  required 
men  to  believe,  at  the  risk  of  being  con- 
demned. Let  the  sincere  Protestant  reader 
ask  himself,  what  is  in  reality  his  rule  of 
faith.  His  ministers  tell  him — the  Bible 
alone.  Let  him  then  take  up  the  Bible  and 
read  these  word*  of  our  blessed  Redeemer-— 
"the  Father  and  I  are  one'' — turn,  then,  to 
the  other  words,  "  the  Father  is  greater  than 
I.''  That  one  of  these  passages,  is  to  be  ex- 
plained by  the  other,  is  certain:  but  which 
shall  take  the  preference,  of  the  other,  the 
sacred  writings  do  not  determine.  If  he  is  a 
Unitarian  he  will  come  to  the  conclusion, 
that  Christ  is  not  God.  If  he  is  a  Presbyte- 
rian, his  opinion  will  be  different.  In  the 
mean  time,  his  belief,  no  matter  to  which  side 
ne  belongs,  is  founded,  not  on  the  Bible,  but 
on  what  he  thinks  to-  be  the  meaning  of  the 
Bible.  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  I  request  you,  as  a 
favor,  to  take  up  these  two  texts,  and  show 
me  and  our  readers,  how  you  can  save  the 
Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  destructive 
operation  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  in 
the  hands  of  the  Unitarian.  If  you  can  and 
will  do  this,  it  will  prove  a  service  to  reli- 
gion, at  which,  although  it  by  no  means  con- 
cerns me,  I  shall  heartily  rejoice.  What  is 
said  here,  in  relation  to  this  fundamental  ar- 
ticle, is  equally  true  of  every  other  tenet  of 
religious  belief.  I  defy  any  Protestant  in 
the  whole  world,  who  is  consistent  with  his 
own  rule  of  faith,  and  rational  in  its  applica- 
tion, if  he  will  only  take  the  pains  to  analyze 
his  belief,  to  find  it  resting  on  any  other 
foundation,  save  his  own  private  opinion. 
For  if  his  rule  of  faith  be  the  Bible  alone, 
then,  he  must  fling  to  the  winds  all  creeds, 
confessions,  and  teachings  of  men.  And 
when  he  has  perused  the  Bible,  if  he  is  asked 
what  doctrines  it  contains,  he  will  be  obliged 
to  answer  according  to  his  opinions  of  its 
meaning.  You  believe  in  predestination; — 
another,  reading  the  Bible  with  equal  sin- 
cerity, disbelieves  it  : — a  third  reads  the 
Bible  and  believes  in  everlasting  punish- 
ment : — a  fourth  rejects  that  belief,  &c.  Are 
they  all  right?  Certainly  not;  though  they 
may  be  all  sincere.  Is  it  the  Bible  that  de- 
ceives them  ?  Certainly  it  is  not.  But  they 
are  deceived  by  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith, 
which  taught  them,  that  in  order  to  know 
what  doctrines  had  been  revealed  by  the  Sa- 
viour of  men,  each  individuabmust  pass  the 
Bible  through  the  crucible  of  his  own  private 
judgment.     And,  though  his    mind  should 


have  undergone  a  thousand  changes,  as  to  th 
meaning  of  the  inspired  book,  still  the  Pro- 
testant rule  of  faith  has  determined,  with  the 
hand  of  destiny,  that  he  shall  end  where  he 
began,  and  never  arrive  at  any  thing  more 
certain  than  opinion. 

Not  so  the  Catholic.  He  may  read  the 
Scriptures,  notwithstanding  the  calumnies 
that  Protestantism  has  perpetuated  against 
the  church,  from  one  generation  to  another, 
since  the  era  of  the  "  Reformation."  But, 
on  points  of  doctrine,  he  does  not  substitute 
his  own  opinions,  by  way  of  inspiring  the 
sacred  text.  He  takes  it  for  granted,  that 
the  meaning  was  understood,  before  he  came 
into  existence.  He  inquires  what  it  is  of 
the  church,  which  has  been  the  guardian 
equally  of  the  book,  and  of  the  doctrines  it 
contains,  since  the  day,  when  Jesus  laid 
her  foundations  on  the  rock  of  eternal  truth. 
Her  pastors  have  never  ceased  to  leach  the 
things,  which,  according  to  Revelation,  we 
must  believe  and  puatice,  in  order  to  be 
saved.  By  this  rule  of  faith  the  whole 
Christian  world  was  united  in  doctrine, 
when  the  Father  of  Protestantism  began  to 
sound  the  trumpet  of  religious  discord,  and 
to  preach  new  opinions,  1500  years  after 
Christians  had  been  warned,  not  to  receive 
any  new  doctrines,  even  though  they  should 
be  preached  by  an  "angel  from  heaven." 

2.  The  Protestant  rule  of  faith  is  that, 
which  was  adopted  by  all  the  acknowledged 
heresies  of  antiquity.  By  this  rule  of  pri- 
vate interpretation,  the  Sabellians  denied 
the  Trinity  of  persons  in  God,  (S.  August, 
lib.  de  hseres.  cap.  41.) — the  Arians,  the 
Divinity  of  Christ — the  Macedonians,  the 
Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  By  this  rule, 
the  Manicheans  rejected  the  old  Testament 
— the  Pelagians  denied  Original  Sin — and 
so,  of  all  the  others.  Did  Christ  then  ap- 
point as  the  infallible  rule  of  fatth  a  prin- 
ciple of  guidance,  which,  in  its  legitimate 
use,  and  not  by  its  abuse,  has  given  rise  to 
all  the  heresies  of  ancient  and  modem  times? 

In  the  Catholic  Church,  on  the  contrarv, 
heresy  has  never  found  a  resting  place. 
The  truth  of  doctrine,  which  had  always 
been  taught  by  the  pastors,  and  believed  by 
all,  was  present  every  where  to  convict  the 
novelty  of  error.  Protestants  indeed,  have 
asserted,  that  the  church  had  apostatized,  but 
none  accuse  her  of  heresy.  Being  herself 
the  oldest  society  of  Christians,  there  was 
no  other  from  which  she  could  have  separa- 
ted. We  meet  the  charge  of  apostacy,  bv 
saying,  that  if  she  did  apostatize,  as  they 
will   have  it,  then  "  the  gates  of  hell  pre- 


7© 


lMc»  \   her," — contrary  to   the   Sa- 

.nise!  Are  they  prepared  for 
iSut  if  the  Saviour's  promise  did  not 
^ii,  "then  the  gates  of  -hell  did  not  prevail 
against  her,  and  Jesus  Christ  was  still  with 
her,  when  Martin  Luther,  John  Calvin,  and 
the  King  of  England,  took  it  into  their  heads 
to  make  churches  of  their  oivn.  Think  you, 
Rev'd  Sir,  that  the  Redeemer  forgot  his 
promise,  or  forsook  his  spouse,  by  aban- 
doning his  own  church — did  Zion  say,  "  our 
Lord  hath  forsaken  me,  and  our  Lord  hath 
forgotten  me?  Why;  can  a  woman  forget 
her  infant,  that  she  will  not  have  pity  on  the 
son  of  her  womb?  And  if  she  should  for- 
get, yet  will  I  not  forget  thee.  Behold  I 
have  written  thee  in  my  hands."  Isaiah 
chap.  xlix.  14. 

3.  In  your  last  letter,  you  lay  it  dwn  as 
an  argument  against  the  Catholic  rule  of 
faith,  that  the  Apostles  alone  were  inspired 
and  infallible.  And  thus,  in  your  thought- 
less zeal,  you  strike  a  fatal  blow,  although 
I  am  sure  you  did  not  intend  it,  at  a  large 
portion  of  the  New  Testament.  If  the 
Apostles  alone  were  in  inspired  and  infalli- 
ble, as  you  assert,  then  what  is  to  become  of 
the  two  Gospels  of  St.  Luke  and  St.  Mark  ? 
What  is  to  become  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles? 
It  is  well  known  that  the  authors  of  these  books 
were  not  Apostles,  and  "and  had  not  seen 
the  Lord."  Will  Protestants  adopt  your 
ruinous  argument,  I  mean  assertion,  on  this 
subject,  which,  if  it  were  true,  would  blast 
the  authority  of  so  large  a  portion  of  the 
written  word  of  God  ?  Will  they  not 
rather,  in  this  instance  at  least,  join  with  me, 
to  shield  the  sacred  writings  from  the  de- 
struction of  your  weapons? 

4.  You  have  frequently  in  your  letters  ap- 
pealed to  the  prejudices  of  our  Protestant 
readers,  on  the  subject  of  what  you  are  pleas- 
ed to  call  the  Aprocryphal  Scriptures.  But 
how,  I  would  ask,  are  you  enabled  by  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith,  to  determine?  what 
books  are  canonical?  That  this  cannot  be 
done  by  the  Scripture  itself,  is  palpably  evi- 
dent. You  certainly  cannot  be  ignorant,  that 
several  books,  which  in  the  first  a  ges\&\<\  claim 
to  inspired  authority,  are  not  in  the  canon. 
Of  these  I  may  nameafew — the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews,  or  according  to  the  Apos- 
tles— the  memoirs  of  the  Apostles — quoted 
frequently  by  Justin  Martyr, — and  different 
tracts  under  the  names  of  Peter,  Paul,  Mat- 
thias and  other  Apostles.  (See  Euseb.  lib.  iii. 
c.  3.  24.)  Why,  then,  are  those  left  out  of 
the  reformed  canon  of  the  Protestant  Scrip- 
tures?   On  the  other  hand,  the  inspiration  of 


the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  the  Epistle  of  St. 
Jude,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  second 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  the  second  and  third  of 
St.  John  and  the  book  of  Revelations,  was  con- 
troverted in  the  same  ages.  And  why,  I 
would  again  ask,  are  these  admitted  into  your 
reformed  canon?  Luther  admitted  the  Epis- 
tle of  St.  James,  in  his  edition  ot  1529  and 
1534,  but  scornfully  expelled  it  from  those  of 
i535,  and  1540.  It  continued  to  be  exclud- 
ed from  the  following  Lutheran  editions  after 
his  death;  viz.  that  of  1548,— 66,— 72,— 75, 
82,-89,-93,-99.  So,  also  was  the  Epistle 
of  St.  Jude,  excluded  from  the  edition  pub- 
lished in  1619.  The  Apocalypse  is  excluded 
from  the  same  editions  and  that  of  1609. 

As  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
good  "  Reformer"  did  not  know  exactly  what 
to  think!  After  the  two  editions,  of  1529 
and  1534,  it  was  agreed,  that  it  should  be  re- 
tained, and  tolerated  as  apocryphal  and  so  it 
continued  in  the  Lutheran  Bibles,  until  the 
time  of  the  two  Wallemburgs,  say  1669. 
Now  every  Protestant  has  the  same  right  to 
sport  with  the  sacred  books,  that  Luther  had. 
And  since  the  Scriptures  themselves,  do  not 
determine  what  books  are  cannonical  and  what 
books  are  not,  is  it  not  something  like  arro- 
gance for  you  or  Mr.  Martin  Luther  to  muti- 
late the  inspired  volume,  and  lop  off,  at  your 
pleasure,  branches  from  the  tree  of  life,  by  ca- 
priciously applying  the  pruning  hook  of  pri- 
vate, individual  opinion.  By  what  rule, 
then,  can  you  prove  according  to  the  Protes- 
tant principle  of  belief,  that  these  books  are 
canonical,  and  that  those  are  not,  canonical  ? 
Let  the  General  Assembly  try  their  wisdom 
on  the  question. 

5.  The  Protestant  rule  of  faith  supposes, 
that  the  Scriptures  are  plain  and  obvious 
in  their  meaning.  And  yet, — the  plea  for  the 
Reformation,  and  the  cry  of  the  Reformers, 
was,  that  the  whole  Catholic  Church  had 
been  mistaken,  as  to  the  true  meaning  of  this 
same  book; — which  was  so  plain  withal,  that 
every  Protestant,  who  has  been  blessed  with 
ten  months  education,  may  take  it  up  and 
"  read  as  he  runs!" — and  that  every  such 
Protestant,  is  bound  to  believe,  that  his 
crude  conceptions  of  its  meaning,  make  him 
wiser  and    more   infallible,    than    all    the 

councils,   FATHERS,    TEACHEBS,     PASTORS    and 

people,  of  all  the   ages    of  the  Christian 
Church!!! 

6.  But  even  admitting  the  absurd  supposi- 
tion, that  such  a  man  is  qualified  to  un- 
derstand the  meaning  of  what  the  book 
says,  how  does  he  know  that  the  book  is,  in 
all  respects,  the  same  now,  that  it  was,  when 


7.1 


it  came  from  the  hands  of  its  inspired  au- 
thors ?  Has  it  been  correctly  translated,? 
Has  it  been  fairly  copied,  from  one  manu- 
script to  another  previous  to  printing?  These 
are  difficulties,  for  which  his  rule  of  faith 
furnishes  no  solution.  And  these  difficulties 
are  increased  an  hundred  fold,  when  he  re- 
members, that  the  Scriptures  were  in  the 
keeping  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which,  the 
prejudices  of  his  education  have  taught  him 
to  look  upon,  as  a  universal  anti-Christian 
conspiracy;  and  that  the  ivorle  of  transcrib- 
ing the  Bible,  generally  devolved  on  those 
monks,  whose  name  is  synonymous,  in  his 
mind,  with  ignorance,  dishonesty,  perfidious- 
ness  and  cruelty.  "What!"  he  will  ask 
with  astonishment; — "  is  it  from  such  a 
source,  that  we  receive  the  written  word  of 
God  ?" — Yes, — gentle  reader — do  not  be 
startled  at  the  discovery.  Before  the  squab- 
ble between  Martin  Luther  and  Leo  X.  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  there  was  not  a  single  Pro- 
testant in  the  whole  universe,  to  take  care  of 
the  Bible.  Mr.  Breckinridge  may  tell  you, 
that  God  was  pleased  to  reveal  the  Protes- 
tant rule  of  faith  1500  years,  after  he  had 
revealed  the  Christian  religion — and  that 
the  Holy  Bible  was  not  in  the  least  tainted, 
by  the  tide  of  corruption,  on  which  it  floated 
down.  But,  you  may  reply  to  him,  in  my 
name,  that  God  could  have  preserved  the  doc- 
trines of  the  church  in  the  same  way — and 
that,  if  Martin  Luther  believed  her,  when  she 
told  him,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  inspi- 
red, written  word  of  God; — he  might  have 
believed  her,  when  she  told  him,  what  doc- 
trines they  contained — especially,  when  it  is 
remembered,  that  it  was  he,  and  not  the 
Church,  that  undertook  to  give  them  a  new 
meaning,  with  which  Christianity,  during  the 
same  space  of  1 500  years,  had  been  totally  un- 
acquainted. With  this  remark  I  leave  my 
reader,  and  my  Rev.  opponent,  to  finish  the 
dialogue.  The  latter  will  have  an  opportu- 
nity to  speak  for  himself;  and  the  public  will 
see  how  he  will  meet  these  difficulties. 

The  Catholic  believes  the  infallibility 
of  the  church.  The  grounds  of  this  belief, 
are  briefly  stated  in  my  last  two  letters;  par- 
ticularly in  No.  5.  He  knows  that  there  has 
been  no  such  thing  as  a  moral  death,  or 
chasm,  in  the  teaching  and  belief  of  those 
doctrines,  which  Carist  revealed,  and  men 
are  bound  to  receive,  as  they  value  their 
salvation.  He  knows,  that  in  this  sense,  the 
church  is  a  avitness  to  the  universe;  and,  as 
he  receives  her  testimony  when  she  says, 
that  the  Scriptures  are  the  inspired  vwrd  of 
God, — that  she  received  and  preserved  them 


as  such:  so  he  receives  her  testimony,  whert 
she  says,  that  the  opinions  of  heretics — no 
matter  of  what  age  or  country,  are  not  the 
doctrines,  which  she  received,  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, from  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles, — 
and  he  yields,  but  a  "  reasonable  obedience," 
to  her  authority,  when  she  admonishes  him, 
not  to  follow  the  notions  of  Martin  Luther, 
or  any  other  individual. 

Wishing  to  stand  corrected,  as  to  the 
length  of  my  letter,  by  the  gentle  reproof 
of  our  publishers,  and  the  moral  of  the 
"  wounded  snake,"  with  which  you  begin 
your  last  epistle,  I  deem  it  prudent  to  has- 
ten to  a  conclusion,  There  are  one  or  two 
points,  however,  which  you  have  protruded 
on  the  consideration  of  our  readers  with  no 
other  view  that  /  can  perceive,  except  to 
gratify  prejudice,  where  it  exists,  and  to  di- 
vert general  attention  from  your  palpable 
abandonment  of  the  rule  of  faith.  To  these 
I  shall  briefly  advert, — although,  until  you 
have  agreed  to  clear  up  the  points,  on  which 
we  are  at  issue,  in  the  way  /  have  pro- 
posed;— I  feel  that  the  mora!  sense  of  the 
community  would  sustain  me,  in  refusing  to 
notice  any  reference  of  yours,  in  which  the 
whole  passage  is  not  quoted. 

In  your  last  epistle  you  ask  me,  to  "ex- 
plain what  Pope  Nicholas  meant,  when  he  said 
to  the  Emperor  Michael,  "The  Pope  is  a 
God  and  therefore  men  cannot  judge 
him."  Now,  as  you  have  the  modesty  in 
this  instance,  to  acknowledge  that  it  is  in- 
struction you  stand  in  need  of,  I  should  be 
sorry  to  refuse  what  you  desire.  Know 
then,  and  understand  in  the  first  place,  that 
Pope  Nicholas  never  said,  "  the  Pope  is  a 
God.,f  Here  I  might--  stop: — but  secondly, 
know  and  understand  that  the  Emperor 
Michael,  had  expelled  Ignatius,  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople  from-hissw. — and  that  Pope 
Nicholas  was  expostulating  with  him,  on  the 
unlawfidness  of  disturbing  the  spiritual  or- 
der of  the.  church,  by  the  exercise  of  secular 
power.  Among  other  things,  he  reminds  the 
Emperor,  that  his  predecessor,  Constantine 
the  Great,  when  called  upon  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  the  bishops  of  the  church,  refused  to 
do  so;  and,  addressing  them  in  the  figurative 
language  of  the  Scripture,  (Psalms  Ixxxi. 
6. )  said  to  them :  "  Vos  dii  estis,  a  vero  Deo 
constituti" — "  Ye  are  Gods,  appointed  by 
the  true  God" — to  show,  that  he,  Constan- 
tine, regarded  their  spiritual  authority,  as  an 
authority  from  God,  and  therefore  too  sa- 
cred, for  the  judgment  of  temporal  princes, 
and  the  interference  of  secular  power.  Si- 
milar language  was  used,  in  similar  circum- 


73 


stances,  by  Theodosius  the  younger.  And 
these  are  the  examples,  which  Pope  Nicholas 
is  holding  up  to  the  the  memory  of  the  Em- 
peror Michael,  to  induce- him  to  desist,  and 
to  show  him  how  much  the  Emperors,  his 
predecessors,  had  respected  the  authority  of 
God,  in  the  persons  of  his  ministers; — and 
that,  though  he  could  command  armies,  and 
ravage  provinces,  yet  he  could  neither  be- 
stow, nor  take  away,  the  spiritual  authority 
of  a  bishop,  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  Con- 
stantine  used  the  words  in  the  sense  I  have 
mentioned.  Pope  Nicholas  did  not  use  them 
as  his  own;  but  referred  to  them  in  the 
sense,  and  for  the  purpose  here  stated.  He 
speaks  of  himself,  in  the  document,  as  the 
humble  "minister'1''  of  Jesus  Christ. 

If,  then,  you  had  waited  for  this  informa- 
tion ;  you  would  not  have  exposed  yourself, 
nor  deceived  your  readers,  by  building  the 
following  assertion  on  the  circumstance,  which 
I  have  just  explained.  Your  words  are  evi- 
dence of  zeal,  which  would  better  befit  a  bet- 
ter cause  :  but  it  is  not  "  the  zeal  according 
to  knowledge."  "  The  Pope  usurps  the 
rights  of  the  people  :  and  the  seat  of  the 
Saviour,  and  would  sit  enthroned  on  the 
iiches  of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel.  In  a 
word  your  infallible  church,  thus  speaks  of 
the  Pope ;  and  your  infallible  Pope  loves  to 
have  it  so."  On  this  whole  concern,  I  have 
only  to  say,  that  if  /  were  found  as  you  are,  in 
this  matter,  I  feel  that  Catholics  would  blush 
for  me: — and  that  heaven  will  judge  the  ca- 
lumnies that  have  been  heaped  on  the  Catho- 
lic Church  and  on  her  supreme  visible  head — 
the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

You  make  a  long  extract  from  the  Council 
of  Lateran  : — on  which  I  have  two  questions 
to  ask  you.  First,  do  you  give  it  as  a  literal 
and  continuous  translation^?  Second,  do  yotf 
affirm  that  in  the  original  it  has  the  same  ge- 
neral meaning,  that  it  seems  to  have  in  the 
quotation?  As  you  say  you  have  the  "  origi- 
nal before  you,"  you  can,  of  course,  have  no 
difficulty  in  giving  a  positive  answer  to  these 
questions.  In  the  mean  time,  a  little  informa- 
tion on  the  character  of  that  quotation,  or 
rather  the  circumstances  to  which  it  relates, 
may  not  be  useless  or  uninteresting  to  the 
reader. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  in  the  first  place, 
that  this  council  was  held  at  a  time  when  the 
feudal  system  was  in  its  full  operation.  A 
council  was,  as  it  were,  the  general  congress 
of  Christendom ;  in  which,  states  and  sove- 
reigns were  represented  for  the  purpose  of 
conferring  together,  on  such  matters,  as  con- 
cerned the  general  welfare.     These  secular '  commentary  on  the  text.     And,  bye  the  bye, 


representatives  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  de- 
finitions of  doctrines  or  morals; — and  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  church  had  nothing  to  do  with 
any  thing  else.  Still,  it  was  deemed  the 
most  convenient  time  and  place,  for  sovereigns/ 
and  statesmen,  to  adopt  such  means  in  con- 
junction with  the  clergy,  as  might  protect  the 
altar  and  the  throne;  or,  as  the  exigencig^of 
the  period  required.  The  social  picture,  min- 
gled Theocracy  and  civil  policy,  of  the  puritan) 
settlements  in  New  England,  presents  but  a 
diminutive  analogy,  when  the  pilgrim  fathers 
and  their  immediate  successors,  (not  to  speak  \ 
of  other  things  far  more  serious,)  would  hard- 
ly ring  the  town-house  bell,  unless  they  found" 
a  text  of  Scripture  for  it. 

At  the  period  of  this  Council  the  Albi- 
genses  were  scattering  the  materials  of  civil 
and  religious  revolution,  in  the  bosom  of 
peaceable  empires  ; — among  nations,  which 
acknowledged  but  one  God,  and  knew  but 
one  religion,  whereby  he  was  to  be  wor- 
shipped. ^Sovereigns  were  obliged  to  provide 
for  their  own  safely.  They  may  have  fore- 
seen those  consequences,  which  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge proclaims  would  have  resulted  from  the 
toleration  of  the  Bible  Society  in  Russia. 
They  would  have  been  obliged  to  abolish  in- 
stitutions just  as  the  Albigenses  might  think 
proper  to  direct,  or  "  else  loose  their  crown." 
This  was  the  fate,  we  are  told,  which  await- 
ed the  Russian  autocrat  if  he  had  not  put 
down  the  Bible  Society///  If  this  be  so, 
as  Mr.  Breckinridge  asserts,  then  there  is  no 
man,  who,  placed  in  the  same  situation,  and 
forseeing  the  consequences,  would  not  have 
done  the  same  thing  as  Alexander.  So  it 
was  in  the  temporal  regulations  adopted  by 
the  commingled  representatives  of  Church 
and  States,  at  the  general  council  of  Lateran. 
Had  they  not  the  right,  I  would  ask,  as  the 
majority,  by  a  million  to  one,  to  take  mea- 
sures for  the  common  welfare  ?  The  doc- 
trine of  Christ  teaches  submission  to  "  the 
powers  that  be  :" — Consequences,  such  as  you 
predicted  of  the  Bible  Society  in  Russia,  have 
always  followed  the  footsteps  of  fanaticism. 
Had  not,  then,  the  Catholic  kings,  and  Catholic 
barons,  and  Catholic  vassals,  and  all  the  orders 
of  feudalism  in  Catholic  Europe,  the  right,  by 
virtue  of  their  majority,  to  take  precautions 
against  such  consequences?  No  Republican, 
I  should  think,  would  deny  it.  \Ywr  have 
said,  indeed,  that  "  you  render  'unto  Caesar 
the  things  that  are  Cassar's" — speaking,  I 
presume,  in  the  name  of  your  Church.  But 
your  hypothetical  prediction,  in  reference  to 
'■Bible  Society  in  Russia,"  is  rather  a  strange 


73 


is  it  not  a  singular  coincidence  with  your  re- 
bark,  that  "  Caesar"  never  was  in  the  power 
of  your  Church,  but  once  ;  and  that  then  the 
"  tribute  money"  was  paid  with  the  blood  of 
a  Protestant,  king!  Should  you  not,  then,  de- 
icately  touch  the  subject  of  persecution,  un- 
til you  can  persuade  yourself  that  history  has 
lost  her  memory?  At  a  time  when  there 
were  not,  perhaps,  a  million  of  Presbyterians 
in  the  whole  world,  Mr.  John  Knox,  the  in- 
sular founder  of  Presbyterianism,  laid  it  down 
as  a  maxim,  that,  "It  is,  not  only  lawful  to 
punish  unto  the  death,  such  as  labour  to  sub- 
vert the  true  religion ; — but  the  magistrates 
and  people  are  bound  so  to  do,  unless  they 
will  provoke  the  wrath  of  God  against  them- 
selves." (Appellation  of  John  Knox  annexed 
to  his  History  of  the  Reformation,  page  25.) 
Had  not  Catholic  Europe  as  good  a  right  to 
take  measures  of  safety,  against  the  revolu- 
tionary spirit,  of  a  few  religious  innovators 
in  the  twelfth  century; — as  a  few  religious  in 
novators  had  to  "punish  unto  the  death,"  all 
those  who  should  contradict  their  religious 
opinions,  in  the  sixteenth  century?  Now,  I 
again  submit  to  your  cool  reflection,  whether 
it  would  not  be  as  profitable  to  your  fame,  and 
to  your  cause,  if  you  would  condescend  to 
redeem  your  signature  by  "  adhering  strictly 
to  the  subject  of  discussion  for  the  time 
being" — as  it  has  been,  to  wander  in  to  these 
labyrinths  of  irrelevant  matter,  from  which 
you  do  not  seem  have  well  studied  the  facul- 
ties of  retreat. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  remark,  that  my 
charity  for  the  mass  of  Protestants,  has  been 
infinitely  enlarged,  by  my  experience  in 
this  controversy.  I  would  not  dare  to  ques- 
tion the  wisdom  or  the  justice  of  that  divine 

I  Being,  who  permits  it  to  he  so: — But  when 

II  consider    the   character    of    their    books, 
\md    the    weapons    of    their    theologians,    I 

can  hardly  imagine,  how  it  could  be  other- 
wise. They  hate  truth  ;  not  because  it  is 
truth;  but  because  their  ministers,  and  their 
books  teach  them  to  regard  truth  as  error. 
And  they  are  confirmed  in  their  hatred,  by  the 


general  "delusion"  which  teaches  them  to  re- 
gard the  prejudices,  that  have  been  instilled 
by  their  books,  and  education  as  the  testimony 
of  the  pure  word  of  God,  the  bible  alone. 
How  many  of  them,  after  having  been  "tossed 
to  and  fro,"  on  the  deluge  of  religious  opinions, 
with  which  Protestantism  has  inundated  the 
world,  and  not  finding  whereon  to  rest  their 
foot,  would  return,  like  the  weary  dove,  to  the 
"  ark,"  from  which  their  fathers,  in  an  hour 
of  irritation  and  excitement,  inconsiderately 
launched  forth  into  the  great  deep.  For  my- 
self, it  has  taught  me  to  bless  God  with  inex- 
pressible gratitude,  for  having  permitted  me 
to  be  born  in  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ; 
otherwise,  I  might  have  ranked  among  the 
fiercest  of  her  opponents,  and  imagined  that, 
in  persecuting  her,  even  with  my  pen,  1  was 
"  doing  God  service."  Thus,  I  may  say  with 
the  poet,  though  not  in  the  literal  sense, 

Haud  ignarus  mali,  miseris  succurrcre  disco. 

Yours  respectfully, 

John  Hughes. 

P.  S. — Bishop  Kenrick  is  entirely  satisfied 
with  your  explanation  of  the  "  mistake ;" — 
which,  it  seems,  was  not  a  mistake,  after  all  ; 
since  that  "  most  respectable  and  responsible 
gentleman,  on  whose  authority  you  relied,  still 
insists  that  such  a  warning,  (viz,  a  prohibi- 
tion to  read  this  controversy,)  was  given,  on 
the  day  named,  and  in  one  of  our  churches,  in 
Philadelphia,  by  a  Roman  Catholic  priest." 
Now,  as  this  is  a  matter  of  some  consequence 
to  us,  will  you  be  pleased  to  request  this 
"most  respectable  and  responsible  gentleman," 
to  tax  his  memory,  and  try  to  recollect  in 
ivhich  of  our  churches  he  was,  on  that  day. 
Tell  him,  that  there  are  only  five  Catholic 
churches  in  the  city ;  and  that  he  may  leave 
the  two,  in  which  Bishop  Kenrick  and  myself 
officiate,  out  of  the  number.  I  am  really  cu- 
rious to  know  in  which  of  the  other  three  the 
warning  was  given  ; — and  so  slyly,  it  seems, 
that  he  was  the  only  person  that  overheaid 
it!!  J.  H. 


CONTROVERSY. .....N°.   10. 


) 


Hole  of  Faith. 


New  York,  3d  April,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, — Sir, 

■"  No  falsehood  can  endure 


Touch  of  celestial  temper,  but  returns 
To  its  own  likeness  ; — up  it  starts 
Discover'd  and  surprised." 

There  is  a  heavenly  virtue  in  the  sword  of 
the  Spirit,  when  faithfully  wielded  by  the 
hand  even  of  a  frail  man,  which  error  cannot 
resist.  The  "atrocious  crime"  of  having 
"told  you  the  truth,"  as  to  your  system, 
and  your  authorities,  has  I  regret  to  per- 
ceive, disturbed  your  temper  not  a  little; 
and  led  you  to  depart,  not  only  from  the  dig- 
nity of  a  minister,  but  from  the  decencies  of 
a  gentleman.  Though  you  begin  your  letter 
with  professions  of  decorum,  you  charge  me 
in  less  than  two  columns  with  six  deliberate 
falsehoods!  But  I  advise  you  to  be  com- 
posed} for  the  good  people  of  this  country 
do  not  think  by  force,  nor  believe  upon  pre- 
scription. I  know  it  is  natural  for  a  system, 
which  has  rested  for  ages  on  authority,  to  be 
impatient  of  inquiry  into  its  title  to  do- 
minion. But  the  days  of  unquestioned 
lordship  over  men's  consciences  have  gone 
by;  and  as  you  stand  the  representative  of  a 
body,  claiming  'infallibility,  wisdom  sug- 
gests that  you  should  not  stumble  in  the  ex- 
ample, while  you  are  pleading  for  the  doc- 
trine! 

Now,  even  admitting  that  I  am  mistaken 
in  the  interpretation  of  Bellarmine,  as  to 
"  fere  de  fide,"  &c;  and  of  the  Pope  as  to 
"  staluere  articulos yirfei,"— must  every  such 
mistake  be  charged  to  a  want  of  veracity? 
I  put  it  to  your  Christian  honour,  I  level  it 
even  to  your  common  honesty — can  you  de- 
fend a  course  so  much  at  war  with  candour, 
propriety  and  justice?  In  these  references, 
did  I  not  meet  your  call,  time  after  time, 
with  quotations,*  translations,  and  exposi- 
tions ?  And,  now,  either  by  your  extracts 
or  mine,  are  not  the  facts  on  which  a  just 
judgment  may  be  formed,  fairly  before  the 
public? 

But  so  far  from  thinking  or  owning  myself 
mistaken,  every  return  of  my  attention  to 
the   subject,  and   every  struggle  you  make 


to  shield  your  cause,  give  me  increased 
conviction  that  I  am  right.  What  surprises 
me  exceedingly  is,  that  you  cavil  at  these 
points,  and  make  these  charges  against  me, 
when  such  a  mass  of  unanswered  matter,  is 
left  by  you  entirely  unnoticed',  and  your 
strange  liberties  with  ancient  testimony  left 
wholly  unexplained.  I  will  refer  you  for 
example  once  more,  to  the  famous  quotation 
from  Tertullian,  where  you  omitted  half  the 
passage,  (as  was  shown  by  me  in  the  next 
letter)  and  thus  made  the  other  half  prove 
the  very  reverse  of  what  the  author  intend- 
ed. I  have  called  again  and  again  for  your 
explanation,  and  you  have  given  none! 

I  will  here  repeat  the  quotations   side  by 
side. 

Mr.  Hughes'  quota- 
tion, intended  to  show,  that 
Rome  was  the  seat  of  the 
true  church,  and  the  Pope 
the  supreme  head  and  suc- 
cessor of  Peter. 

"  If  you  live  near  Italy, 
you  see  be/ore  your  eyes  the 
Roman  Church.  Happy 
Church!  to  which  the  Apos- 
tles left  the  inheritance  of 
doctrines  with  their  blood! 
where  Peter  was  crucified 
like  his  Master;  where  John 
was  beheaded  like  the  Bap- 
tist."— (See  letter  of  Mr. 
Hughes,  No.  5.) 


The  ungarbled  pas- 
sage. 

"  Survey  the  Apostoli- 
cal   churches   in    which 

the   VERY    CHAIRS   OF   THE 

Apostles  still  preside 
over  their  stations,  in  ivhich 
their  own  letters  are  recited, 
uttering  the  voice,  and  re- 
presenting the  presence  of 
each  of  them.  Is  Achaia 
nearest  to  thee  ?  Thou  hast 
Corinth.  If  thou  art  not 
far  from  Macedonia,  'hou 
hast  the  Philippians,  and 
the  Thessalonians.  If 
thou  canst  go  to  Asia,  thj 
hast  Ephesus  ;  hut  if  thoul 
art  near  Italy  thou  hast 
Rome,  whence  to 
also  authority  is  nearj 

AT  HAND." 


And  now  we  ask,  is  this  not  taking  a  very 
great  liberty  with  the  evidence  of  this  father? 
Does  he  not  put  all  the  Jlpostles,  and  all  their 
seals  and  cities,  Achaia,  Corinth,  Philippi, 
Ephesus,  &c,  on  the  same  footing  of  "au- 
thority," as  Peter  and  Rome?  Yet  Mr. 
Hughes  adduced  a  part  of  this  to  prove  just 
the  reverse ! 

I  have  still  another  illustration,  if  possible, 
more  palpable  than  the  last.  It  is  your  quo- 
tation   FROM    STANDARDS   NOT    OUR    OWN,  to 

prove  that  the  Presbyterians,  united  under 
"the  General  Assembly,"  in  this  country, 

"  FORBID    THE    TOLERATION    of    A    FALSE    RE- 
LIGION."     You   refer,  with   an  air  of  great 


7S 


assurance,  to  the  edition  published  by  Towar 
&  Hogan,  in  1829.     There  was  no  edition  of 
our  standards  published  by  Towar  fy  Hogan 
in  1829.     Jlnd  in   the  edition  published  by 
them  in  1 827,  the  phrase  which  you  profess 
to  cite  is  not  found,   either  in   the  page  to 
which  you  refer,  or  in  any  other  part  of  the 
book!!     The    public    has    already  judged  of 
this.     In   my  last   letter,  I  gave   you   refer- 
ences to   our  standards,    repelling  your  un- 
founded and  slanderous    charge.      You   say 
you    "find  no   such  reference. "     This  fact 
ought  to  have  led   a  candid    man  to  suspect 
his  mistake;  and  a  just  one  to  seek  its  correc- 
tion.    But  you  go  on  to  give  more  extracts; 
and  then  call  on  me  to  account  for  the  dis- 
crepance of  our  references.      In  responding, 
(1.)  I  assure  you  I  hardly  know  how  to  ac- 
count for  it  as  it  respects  yourself;  when  on 
a  former  occasion,  I  referred  a  misrepresenta- 
tion of  yours  to  ignorance,  you   declined  the 
apology  which  it  furnished.    Where  to  rest  this 
mistake,  I  know  not. — (2.)  As  to  the  extract  it- 
self and  the  source,  the  only  way  in  which  I 
can  account  for  your  extraordinary  misrepre- 
sentation is  to  suppose  that  you  have  avail- 
ed yourself  of  a  reprint  of  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism and  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
as  they  originally  appeared  in   Great  Britain 
in  1647.     To  this  you  refer  (in  letter  No.  1) 
when  you  say  with   more   flippancy  than  his- 
toric truth — k'  a  number  of  men  appointed  at 
Westminster  Jl.  D.  1647,  by  order  of  Parlia- 
ment to  make  a  religion  for  the  United  King- 
dom of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland."     It  was 
a  glaring  perversion  to  say  that  their  assem- 
bly  was  convoked    to    "  make   a   religion.''9 
But  now  you  assume  this  high  prerogative  for 
the  Presbyterian  church!     Truly  we  are  not 
yet  prepared  to  take  our  seats  by  the  side,  or 
in  the  bosom  of  the  church  of  Rome,  as  an 
intolerant  communion  and  a  persecuting  pow- 
er,   however   your  hasty   and  self-convicted 
zeal    may   have    indiscreetly   caught  at   the 
doings  of  another  age,  and  land,  and  people, 
and  charged  them  ijpon  us!     Need  I  tell  you 
at  this  late  day,   that   some  fifty  years  ago 
when  the  basis  was  laid  of  the  present  union 
of  the  Presbyterian  church    in  the    United 
States  in  one  General  Assembly,  and  the 
formularies  of  the  church  prepared,  all  the 
offensive  passages  which  you  have  quotedwere 
solemnly  rejected;  that  the  passages  to  which 
I  have  already  referred    you   were  solemnly 
adopted;  that  those  you   cite  are  not,    and 
never  were  a  part  of  our  standards  any  more 
than  the  decrees  of  Trent;  or  the  creed  of 
Pius  IV;    or  the  acts  of  the  British  Parlia- 
ment?    While   the   public   mind  alternates 


between  surprise  at  your  ignorance,  and  sus- 
picion of  your  motives,  the  question  must  of- 
ten be  repeated,  how  could  he  be  ignorant? 
Yet  if  not,  how  could  he  have  ventured  on  so 
extraordinary  a  misrepresentation? 

I  give  below,  in  contrast,  the  true  extracts 
from  our  standards — and  that  which  you 
have  transferred  to  us  from  the  Times  and 
the  Realms  in  which  the  church  and  the  state 
were  united,  and  intolerance  inseparable  from 
the  very  nature  of  that  union. 


Extracts  from,  the  Stand-  Mr.  Hughes'  misrepresen 

ards    of    the    Presbyterian  tation. 

Church,  on   Toleration  and  "  The  standard  of  Pres- 

the  (Jivil  Magistrate.  byterianism  in    the    United 

Form     of    Government,  States,  and  in  the  19th  cen- 

Book  1st,  chapter  1st,  sec-  tury,  makes  it  a  sin  against 

tion   1st.   page  343,  Towar  the    second   commandment 

&  Hogan's  edition,  1827. —  of    God    to    tolerate    a 

"They  are  unanimously  of    FALSE    RELIGION. It    is 

opinion,  that  God   alone  is  true  the  General  Assembly 

Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  have   not  yet  told  us  what 

therefore  they  consider  the  religions  are  to  be  regarded 

right  of  private  judgment  in  as  'false.'  (Mr.  H.'s  Letter 

all  matters  that  respect  reli-  No.  7.)      But   in   the  very 

gion  as  universal  and  una-  same  chapter  and    section 

llenable."  123d  chap.  3d  sec.)   I  find 

Confession  of  Faith,  23d  the  following:  "He'  (the 
chap.,  3d  and  4th  sections,  civil  magistiate)  'hath  nu- 
— "  Civil  magistrates  ma)'  ihorily,  and  it  is  his  duly, 
not  in  the  least  interfere  to  take  order,  that  unity  and 
with  matters  of  faith — they  peace  be  preserved  in  the 
should  give  no  preference  to  church;  that  the  truth  of 
any  one  denomination  of  Go<!  be  preserved  pure  and 
Christians  above  the  rest —  entire;  that  all  blasphemies 
and  ecclesiastical  persons  and  heresies  be  suppressed} 
should  enjoy  free,  full,  and  all  corruptions  and  abuses 
unquestioned  liberty ;"  &c.  in  worship  and  discipline 
"  It  is  the  duty  of  the  peo-  prevented  or  reformed;  and 
pie  to  pray  for  the  magis-  all  the  ordinances  of  God 
trates — and  to  be  subject  duly  settled,  administered 
to  their  authority  for  con-  and  observed.  For  the  bet- 
science  sake — from  which  ter  effecting  whereof,  he 
ecclesiastical  persons  are  hath  power  to  call  Synods, 
not  exempted — much  less  to  be  present  at  them,  and 
hath  the  Pope  any  power  to  provide  that  whatsoever 
or  jurisdiction  over  them  in  is  transacted  in  them,  be 
their  dominions — and  least  according  to  the  mind  of 
of  all  to  deprive  them  of  God."  (Mr.  H.'s  Letter  No. 
their  dominion  or  lives,  if  he  9.) 
shall  judge  them  to  be  her- 
etics. 


// 


It  seems  peculiarly  fit,  in  juxta-position 
with  the  above,  to  advert  to  the  decrees  of 
the  council  of  4th  Lateran,  (extracted  into 
my  last  letter,  (for  the  extermination  of  here- 
tics. You  ask  (1.)  "  Do  you  give  it  as  a  li- 
teral and  contiguous  translation?"  I  answer 
unhesitatingly — I  do.  It  is  as  literal  as  the 
sense  will  bear.  (2)  You  ask,"  do  you  af- 
firm that  in  the  original,  it  has  the  same  ge- 
neral meaning  that  it  seems  to  have  in  the 
quotation?"  I  answer,  it  is  from  your  own 
'■Caranza's  summa  concilioruni"thatIquote.. 
As  I  suppose  you  have  the  original,  you  can 
compare  it  with  any  extracts,  and  with  my 
translation.  I  omitted  the  original  for  want 
of  space  alone.  I  consider  the  2d  question 
an  indignity  offered  to  the  feelings  of  any 


9 


7© 


honest  man.  Go  to  the  original,  and  give  us 
another  translation,  and  if  you  can,  prop  a 
sinking  cause  with  good  sense;  but  do  not 
think  to  turn  the  edge  of  these  solid  autho- 
rities by  charging  me  again  with  fdlsehood! 
Your  remarks  on  this  decree  against  heretics 
are  most  peculiar.  You  say  (l)  "  The  coun- 
cil was  held  at  a  time  ivhen  the  feudal  system 
was  in  full  operation."  You  give  no  2d,  but 
go  on  to  add,  '.'  A  Council  was  as  it  were  a 
general  congress  of  Christendom,  in    which 

^states  and  sovereigns  were  represented,"  &c. 

£  Next,  "The  secular  representatives  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  definition  of  doctrines 
and  morals,  "  and  the  infallibility  of  the 
church  had  nothing  to  do  with  any  thing 
else."  Next,  "  The  sovereigns,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  clergy,  deemed  it  a  convenient 
time  and  place,  to  adopt  such  measures  as 
might  protect  the  altar  and  the  throne;"  last- 
ly the  Albigenses  were  endangering  the  uni- 
versal state  the  universal  church,  and  "the 
sovereigns  (of  Europe)  were  obliged  to  provide 
for  their  own  safety" 

(1)  Now  this  council  is  acknowledged  by 
your  church  as  a  general  council,  lawfully 
convened. — The  necessary  result  on  your 
principles  is,  that  its  acts  were  infallible. 
But  you  are  driven  to  defend  some  of  its  de- 
crees by  abandoning  others.  Yours  is  a 
strange  alembic,  by  which  you  separate  the 
secular  from  the  infallible  decrees.  But  did 
not  this  decree  against  the  heretics  directly 
concern  " faith  and  morals."  Heresy  is  re- 
lative to  faith  as  departed  from,  and  the  mur- 
der of  heretics  is  a  violation  of  the  moral  law; 
and  the  command  to  do  it  supposes  obedience 
which  is  a  moral  act.  The  decree  designates 

"  EVERY  HERESY    EXTOLLING    ITSELF  AGAINST 

*      THIS  HOLY,  ORTHODOX,  CATHOLIC  FAITH  WHICH 

^VE    BEFORE  EXPOUNDED.''         "  Those   wllO  be- 

^fttre  expounded  this  faith"  were  of  course  not 
"  seculars,"  for  you  say  "  they  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  definition  of  doctrines  and  mo- 
rals."— Therefore  according  to  your  own  ad- 
mission, it  was  done  ecclesiastically — and 
therefore  infallibly.  And  what  makes  this 
certain  is,  that  a  little  below  it  says,  "  all 

HERESIES,  DENOTED  BY  THE  CHURCH,  MUST  BE 
EXTERMINATED  BY  THE  SECULAR  FOWER,"  &C. 

The  decree  then  is  all  your  own. 

(2)  When  you  call  this  council,  a  "  con- 
gress of  Christendom,"  you  make  the   Pope 

your  own  confession,  the  universal  head 
the  state  and  the  church.  The  Pope  pie- 
sided— it  was  an  ecclesiastical  general  coun- 
cil—the states  and  sovereigns  were  represent- 
ed in  it — and  the  body  passed  decrees  on  the 
lives  and  property  of  subjects,  on  the  crowns 


A  bJ 

•..ot 


of  princes;  and  on  the  allegiance  of  subjects, 
as  well  as  on  matters  of  faith  and  morals; 
and  the  ultimate,  the  supreme  sanction  for 
bringing  kings  to  their  orthodoxy  was  this; 
"But  if  the  temporal  lord,  required  and 
warned  by  the  church,  shall  neglect  to  purge 
his  territory  from  this  heretical  filth,  let  him, 
by  the  Metropolitan  and  comprovincial  Bish- 
ops, be  tied  by  the  bond  of  excommunica- 
tion;"— "and  if  he  scorn  to  satisfy  within  a 
year,  let  that  be  signified  to  the  Pope,  that 
he  may  thenceforth  denounce  his  vassals 
absolved  from  their  fidelity,"  (i.  e.  their  alle- 
giance to  their  prince)  and  may  expose,  (i.  e. 
the  Pope  may  expose,)  his  country  to  be 
seized  on  by  Catholics,  who,  exterminating 
heretics,  may  possess  it  without  any  contra- 
diction— and  keep  it  in  the  purity  of  faith." 
(3.)  While  crowns  are  thus  put  at  the 
Pope's  feet,  and  the  lives  of  men  are  at  his 
disposal,  not  a  word  is  said  "  about  providing 
for  the  safety  of  the  sovereigns,"  at  "this 
congress  of  Christendom."  No,  their  safety 
was  in  submission  and  silence; — and  they 
felt  themselves  well  off,  if,  after  holding  the 
Pope's  stirrup,  and  kissing  his  feet,  they 
could  hold  their  crowns  by  doing  homage  for 
them,  and  their  lives  by  his  lordly  grant. 

(4)  And  then  to  think  of  explaining  this 
atrocious  decree,  which  deluged  Europe  in 
blood,  by  referring  to  the  poor  Albigenses,  as 
disturbing  the  peace  of  kingdoms,  and  "  obli- 
ging sovereigns  to  provide  for  their  own  safe- 
ty," by  indiscriminate  extermination  of  all 
who  did  not  think  with  them  I  They  were 
no  more  in  strength  and  numbers,  compared 
with  all  Europe,  than  a  little  flock  of  kids 
before  a  great  army. 

(5)  But  the  strangestof  all  your  expositions 
is  this — "  had  not  then  Catholic  kings,  and 
Catholic  barons,  and  Catholic  vassals,  all  the 
orders  of  feudalism  in  Catholic  Europe,  the 
right  by  virtue  of  their  majority,  to  take  pre- 
cautions against  such  consequences?  No  re- 
publican I  should  think  would  deny  it." 
The  argument  is,  that  a  majority  have  a 
right  to  exterminate  the  minority ;  for  disagree- 
ing with  them  in  opinion.  Heresy  was  the 
sin  for  which  all  these  bloody  acts  were  pass- 
ed. No  sin  against  the  state  is  mentioned; 
nothing  that  it  concerns  the  civil  power  to 
punish;  but  just  what  the  Protestants  of  this 
land  are  doing,  protesting  against  the  Papa- 
cy!— Yours  is  truly  strange  republicanism. 
How  well  for  us,  in  view  of  old  decrees  and 
new  arguments  for  them,  that  Protestants 
have  yet  the  majority  in  our  country! 

But  my  heart  grows  sick  at  the  recital. 
Indeed  Sir,  yours  is  a  sad  business,  to  de- 


77 


fend  or  explain  such  enormities.  But  no 
skill  can  torture  it  into  propriety.  No  Je- 
suit can  cover,  or  excuse,  or  deny  it. 

I  next  pass  to  meet  your  demand  and  sus- 
tain my  statement,  "that  the'  catechism  of 
the  Council  of  Trent  gives  only  four  words 
of  the  second  commandment  and  closes  with 
an  expressive  etcetera."  I  find  that  you  are 
accustomed  to  make  calls  on  me,  which  from 
their  wording,  convey  the  impression  to  the 
public  that  I  am  wholly  in  error  as  to  some 
authority  or  fact,  and  then,  when  I  produce 
the  proof,  instead  of  owning  it,  you  drop  it  in 
silence.  So  you  did  in  reference  to  the 
Pope's  anathematizing  Bible  Societies,  so 
you  did  in  reference  to  Bellarmine's  "  fere 
de  fide.''  Before  the  proof  was  adduced, 
you  brought  a  heavy  charge  against  me.  Af- 
ter it  was  produced  you  do  not  say  one  word 
in  the  way  of  interpretation  or  argument,  but 
pass  the  discussion  with  a  petulant  taunt. 
So  as  to  the  three  systems  in  your  church  as 
to  the  Pope's  supremacy — viz:  a  presiden- 
cy, an  unlimited  monarchy,  and  deification. 
Twice  have  I  brought  proof,  you  answer  only 
by  a  denial. 

And  now  as  to  the  second  commandment 
and  the  Council  of  Trent.  You  say  my 
statement  is  "  untrue,"  and  that  it  is  "  bear- 
ing false  witness  against  my  neigl 
Now  for  the  proof. 

Catechismus  Concilii 
Tridenti  Ph.  V.  pontif. 
max.  Jussu  promulgatus. 
Primum  Prceceptum  Deca- 
logi. 

Ego  sum  Dominus  Deus 
tuus  qui  eduxi  te  de  terra 
Egypii,  de  Domo  servitutis. 
Non  habebis  Deos  alienos 
coram  me.  Non  facies  tibi 
sculptile,  &c. 

Secundum  Decalogi  Prae- 
ceptum. 

Non  assumes  nomen  Do- 
mini Dei  Tui  in  vanum. 


Catechism  of  the 
of  Trent  published 
of  Pope  Pius  V. 

1st.  Precept  of  the  Deca- 
logue. 

1  am  the  Lord  thy  God 
who  led  thee  out  of  the  land 
of  Egj'pt  and  out  of  the 
house  of  bondage.  Thou 
shalt  have  no  other  Gods 
before  inc.  Thou  shalt  not 
make  to  thee  a  graven 
image,  &c. 

Second  Precept  of  the 
Decalogue. 

Thou  shalt  not  take  the 
name  of  the  Lord  thy  G< 
in  vain. 

Here  then  we  see  even  as  I  have  said,  that 
four  words  only  are  given,  viz.,  non  facies 
tibi  sculptile,  thou  shalt  not  make  to  thee 
a  graven  image,  and  then  follows  the  ex- 
pressive etcetera.  It  is  true  these  four 
words  are  fastened  to  the  end  of  the  first 
commandment,  and  no  doubt  for  the  purpose 
of  casting  even  them  into  the  shade.  But  it 
is  the  real  2d  commandment  which  begins 
with  these  four  words.  But  however  you 
class  the  long  and  expressive  command 
against  making  and  bowing  down  to,  and 
worshiping  images,  where  are  all  the  other 
portions    of   it?     Are   they   not    dropped? 


And  do  we  not  clearly  see  why?  Here 
then  is  on  one  hand  the  catechism  word  for 
word,  and  on  the  other,  Mr.  Hughes  deny- 
ing it  and  charging  me  with  falsehood  for  re- 
porting it.  Truly  your  denial  will  presently 
be  to  us,  a  stereotype  proof  of  the  truth  of  a 
proposition.  What  is  thus  so  clearly  proved 
from  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
the  translations  into  various  languages,  copy 
in  a  greater  or  less  degree  according  to  circum- 
stances. I  have  mentioned  several  instances 
of  the  kind  in  my  last  letter.  You  take  no 
notice  of  them.  There  is  now  on  my  table 
an  example,  "The  most  Rev.  Dr.  J.  But- 
ler's Catechism,  enlarged,  improved  and  re- 
commended by  tbe  four  Roman  Catholic 
Archbishops  of  Ireland,  as  a  general  cate- 
chism for  the  kingdom."  Philadelphia,  pub- 
lished by  Eugene  Cummiskey,  1827,  lesson 
14.  1st  commandment,  I  am  the  Lord  thy 
God,  thou  shalt  not  have  strange  gods  before 
me,  &c.  2d.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name 
of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain.  3d,  Remem- 
ber the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy,  &c.  &c. 
Here  is  not  one  single  word  about  graven 
linages.  Have  I  not  justly  called  this  ex- 
pressive silence  ? 

Once  more,    your   attempt   at  explaining 
Pope  Nicholas'  calling  himself  a  god,  is  a 
eil    too    thin    to    cover  the    deformity  and 

asphemy  of  the  assumption.     It  is  true  that 
quotes    from    the  Emperor  Constantine; 

t  he  so  quotes  as  to  approve  of  what  he 
ad  said.  Upon  your  construction,  there  is 
no  meaning  or  sense  in  the  reasoning  of  the 
Pope.  Whereas  the  Pope  uses  the  refer- 
ence to  prove  himself  superior  to  all  secular 
authority.  In  proof  of  this,  see  his  words; 
Satis  evidenter  ostenditur  a  seculari  potestate 
nee  ligari  prorsus,  nee  solvi  posse  pontificem 
quern    constat    a    pio    principe,   Constantino 

uod   longe  supeiius,  memoravimus)  Deum 

pellatum,  nee  posse  Deum  ab  hominibus 
udicari  manifestum  est.  It  may  very  evi- 
dently be  shown  that  the  Pope,  who  as  we 
have  already  related^  was  called  God  by 
Prince  Constantine,  can  neither  be  bound 
nor  released  by  the  secular  authorities,  for  it 
is  evident  that  God  cannot  be  judged  by 
men. 

Your  pompous  challenge  to  a  reference, 
with  the  reason  assigned  for  it,  viz.,  that 
the  language  and  the  books  about  ivhich  ice 
differ  are  unknown  to  the  mass  of  our  read- 
ers, is  curious  enough;  especially  when  we 
consider  that  your  public  prayers  and  stan- 
dard Bible  are  both  in  an  unknown  tongue. 
I  have  uniformily  studied  to  be  simple,  faith- 
ful, and  full  in  my  references.     I  now  greet 


78 


your  arrival  at  the  principle  of  private  inter- 
pretation. If  you  will  add  to  the  points 
you  mention,  the  question  about  the  cate- 
chism of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  the  other 
catechisms,  and  about  the  Pope  calling  him- 
self God;  also,  the  question  of  the  true  sense 
of  my  extract  from  the  4th  Council  of  Later- 
an,  and  the  interpretation  of  2d.  Peter  i.  20. 
then  I  will  promptly  agree  to  such  a  refer- 
ence, it  being  understood  that  the  parties 
shall  be  neither  Roman  Catholics  nor  Pres- 
byterians. 

But  now  let  us  return  to  the  line  of  our 
argument.  If  I  am  not  greatly  deceived, 
your  reasoning  in  behalf  of  your  rale  of 
faith  "in  thk  apostolical  succession" 
has  been  fairly  shown  to  be  unscriptural  and 
fallacious — I  proceed  to  remark  still  far- 
ther. 

I.  One  of  your  methods  of  defending  your 
church's  infallibility,  is  this,  "if  the  church  be 
not  infallible,  then  the  gates  of  hell  have  pre- 
vailed against  it,  and  the  Redeemer  has  forgot- 
ten his  promise  to  his  spouse."  Now  observe, 
(1.)  The  question  in  debate  is  whether 
this  infallibility  was  ever  promised;  and 
whether  the  existence,  security,  and  triumph 
of  the  church  at  all  depend  upon  such  in- 
fallibility. We  say  not  at  all.  The  gates  of 
hell  shall  never  prevail  against  the  church, 
because  Christ  her  head  is  with  her.  By 
such  an  inference  therefore,  you  beg  the- 
question,  but  do  not  prove  it.  (2.)  In  this 
way  also  you  assume  without  proof  that 
yours  is  the  true  church,  and  then  argue  that 
she  is  infallible.  But  you  must  first  prove 
yours  the  true  church,  and  the  only  true 
church;  or  else  on  your  own  system  your 
conclusion  is  worth  nothing.  You  can  only 
prove  it  by  private  interpretation  ; — you  can- 
not prove  it  all.  (3.)  Supposing  that  Christ 
did  promise  (which  we  deny)  an  infallible 
church  on  earth;  there  is  another  conclu-* 
sion  far  more  obvious  than  that  which  you" 
draw.  It  is  this — the  church  of  Rome  has 
protect  herself  fallible  in  doctrine  and  falli- 
ble in  morals— therefore  the  gales  of  hell  have 
prevailed  against  her; — and  she  cannot  be 
the  true  Church  of  Christ.  This  is  on  your 
own  principles;  and  you  cannot  consistent- 
ly escape  the  conclusion. 

II.  Allowing  that  Christ  appointed  an  in- 
fallible tradition  of  doctrine,  and  a  succes- 
sion of  infallible  teachers,  then  the  church 
which  does  not  dispense  his  ordinances,  and 
teach  his  doctrines,  as  he  instituted,  and 
taught,  cannot  be  a  true  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Now  I  will  prove  that  your  church 
has  corrupted  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  and 


the  doctrines  of  Christ.  If  so,  she  is  desti- 
tute, of  the  true  rule  of  faith,  on  your  own 
principles.  I  refer  you  for  proof  of  this  to 
the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  21.  Sess. 
1st.  and  2d.  chap's.  I  suppose  you  have  the 
original,  and  can  compare  it  with  this  trans- 
lation— "Although  Christ  the  Lord  did  in 
the  last  supper  institute  this  venerable  sacra- 
ment of  the  Eucharist,  in  the  species  of  bread 
and  tmne,  and  thus  delivered  it  to  the  Apos- 
tles;" "and  though  from  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  religion,  the  use  of  both  kinds, 
was  not  unfrequent — yet  when  in  process  of 
time,  that  practice,  was,  for  weighty  and  just 
causes,  changed,  Holy  Mother  Church,  re- 
cognising her  acknowledged  authority,  in  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments,  approved 
the  custom  of  communion  in- one  kind,  and 
commanded  it  to  be  observed  as  a  law." 
Chap,  iv:  Canon  1st.  "Whosoever  shall 
affirm  that  all  and  every  one  of  Christ's 
faithful  are  bound  by  divine  command  to  re- 
ceive the  most  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucha- 
rist in  both  kinds,  as  necessary  to  salvation, 
let  him  be  accursed." 

Here  then  is  (1)  a  confession  that  Christ 
instituted  the  sacrament  of  the  supper  in 
bread  and  wine.  (2.)  That  from  the  begin- 
ning the  use  of  both  the  bread  and  the  wine 
was^.common  (not  unfrequent.)  (5.)  That 
there  were  weight;/  and  just  causes  for 
changing  (mark  it!)  Christ's  law.  (4.) 
That  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  made  the 
change  into  a  law.  (5.)  Whosoever  finds 
fault  with  this  dreadful  innovation  is  ac- 
cursed. (6  )  Yet  this  is  no  less,  than  di- 
viding in  twain  a  solemn  sacrament  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  and  dropping  one  half  of  this 
sealing  ordinance!  How  expressive  is  the 
prophecy  (Daniel  vii.  25.)  ''And  he  shall 
speak  great  words  against  the  Most  High; 
and  shall  wear  out  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High,  and  think  to  change  times  and  laivs>" 

VTo  the  two  sacraments  instituted  by  Christ 
r  church  has  added  no  less  than^ue  new 
ones.  One  of  these,  viz.  extreme  unction,  is 
thus  proved  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  sess. 
14.  chap.  1.  "  Truly  the  Holy  unction  of  the 
sick,  was  instituted  as  it  were,  truly  and 
properly  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament, 
hinted  at  indeed,  (insinuatum)  by  our  Lord 
Christ  in  Mark,  but  recommended  and 
preached  to  the  faithful  by  James  the  Apos- 
tle and  brother  of  our  Lord."  In  the  canon 
just  below,  it  is  said  to  have  been  "institu- 
ted by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  but  there  is 
no  attempt  at  other  or  better  proof  than 
that  quoted  before.  A  sacrament  resting 
on  an  "  as  it  were,"  and  a  "hinted  at" 


79 


by  Christ!    And  then  the  proof  from  James 
(5  chap.    14,   15,  ver.)  is  perverted   in  the 
translation  and   use  of  it.     "  Anointing  the 
sick,"  as  mentioned  by  James,  "  raised  him 
up,"   by  miraculous  power,    to    live    again. 
The  Lord  who  "raised  him  up,"  "forgave 
his  sins." — But  extreme  miction,  as  the  name 
imports,   is  a   last  act;  and   the  translation 
from  the   Greek,  in  the  decree  of  the  Coun- 
cil, changes  the  meaning  to  this,  "  the  Lord 
will  ease  him."     But  besides   the  fact  that 
this    institution     is   utterly    an    innovation, 
there  is   about  it  a  most  singular  dilemma, 
which  explains  in  part  the  cautious  language 
of   the   decree.      The  Council   had  decreed 
(3d    chap,    of  sess.     14.)   that    "the  proper 
ministers  of  this  sacrament  are  either  Bish- 
ops, or  Priests  regularly  ordained  by  them." 
The  same  Council  decreed  that  "In  the  last 
supper,    our    Lord    appointed    his    Apostles 
priests  of  the  New  Testament."  (sess.  22d. 
chap.  1st.)      When  the  Apostles  administer- 
ed  the  unction  to  the  sick,  (Mark  vi.   14.) 
they   were    then  priests,   or   they   were   not 
priests.     If  they    were    priests    then,   they 
were  not  made  priests  at   the  last   supper; 
and  the  Council  in  affirming  they  were  have 
erred:  or  if  they  were  not  priests  then,  or 
till  the  last  supper,  the  unction,   not  being 
administered  by  priests,  was  no  sacrament; 
and  the  Council  in  declaring  it  was  a  sacra- 
ment, has  greatly  erred.     In  either  case,  the 
Council  has  overthrown  its  own  infallibility, 
and    that  of   the  Church   of  Rome.     Space 
alone  is  wanting  to   apply  the   same  train  of 
reasoning  with  equal  effect  to  show  that  your 
church  has  corrupted  the  doctrines  of  Christ 
and   his  Jlpostlts;    so    that    many    of  those 
which  you  hold   to  be  cardinal,  are  novelties 
and    errors;    such    are   Transubstantiation, 
Purgatory,  Indulgences,    the  Pope's    supre- 
macy, &c,   which,    if  my  life  be  spared,  I 
hope  in  due  time  to  make  appear.      So  that  it 
is  easier  to  show  that  our  religion  urns  before 
Luther,  than   yours   before   the    Council   cf 
Trent.     The    inference    is    most  conclusive 
that  since  the  church  of  Rome  has  altered 
and  added  to  the  sacraments  of  Christ,  and 
corrupted  his  doctrines,  she  is  not  unchange- 
able,   that  she  has  not  been  an  "infallible 
teacher,"  and   of  course    lacks  that  rale  of 
faith,  which  Mr.   Hughes  himself  says  the 
true  church  must  have! 

III.  The  canon  of  Scripture  used  by  yoxir 
church,  is  not  the  canon  of  the  Christian 
church.  As  to  the  canonicity  of  all  the  books 
of  the  true  Bible,  you  and  we  are  agreed.  It 
is  true  you  have  often  in  this  discussion 
taken  common  ground  with  the  Infidel,  and 


attempted  to  perplex  the  proof  of  the  authen- 
ticity  of  the   Bible,    in  order  to  carry  your 
system.     We  did  not  receive  the  Bible  exclu- 
sively through  the  church  of  Rome.     But  al- 
lowing that  we  did,  so  did  you    receive  the 
Old    Testament   canon    exclusively  through 
the  Jews.      If  then   because    we   receive   it 
from  you,  we   ought  to  take  your  traditions 
with  the  text  from  you,    so  ought  you,  be- 
cause you  receive  the  Old   Testament   from 
the  Jews,  to  take   their  traditions  with  the 
text   from  them.     Again — Though  you    get 
the  Old  Testament  from  the  Jews,  you  add 
many  books  to  their  canon,  -which   they  re- 
jected.     Why  have  you  done  this?     If  you 
may  add    what  the  Jews  rejected,    and  yet 
hold  a  part  in  common  with  them  as  you  do, 
may   not  the  Christian   church    reject  what 
you  add,  and  yet  hold  a  part  in  common  with 
you?     This  is  what  the  Christian  church  has 
tl„ne. — Now  as  to  the  Old  Testament  canon, 
it  is  conceded  by  your  church  that  the  Jews 
rejected,  as  not  canonical,  those  books  called 
"  Apochryphal,"  which  the  Council  of  Trent 
decreed  to  be  a  part  of  the  canon.     Neither 
Christ  nor  his  Apostles  ever  found  fault  with 
the  Jews  for  rejecting  true  Scripture* from  the 
canon,  or  adding  false  books  to  it;  though 
their  false  glosses  and   traditions  were  con- 
tinually exposed  by  them.     So  far  from  this, 
Christ  and    his  Apostles  continually  quoted 
from  the  present  Old  Testament;  yet  not  a 
word   from  your'  additional  books — Macca- 
bees, Tobit,  &c  &c.     But  they  referred  the 
Jews  "to  whom  were  committed  the  oracles 
of  God"  (Rom.  3.    2.)  to    their   own    Scrip- 
tures— "search  the  Scriptures,  for  in  them 
ye  think  ye  have  eternal   life — and  they  are 
they   which   testify  of  me." — (John   5.   39.) 
"As  it  is  written,""  "that  it  might  be  fulfill- 
ed," &c.  were  the  familiar  and  unqualified 
approbation  of  Jesus  and  his  Apostles,  to  the 
Jewish  Scriptures.      And  by  comparing  the 
27th    with   the   44th  verse    of  Luke's   24th 
chapter, you  will  find  Christ  saying  that  "  all 
the  Scriptures"  were  comprised  in  the  "  law  of 
Moses,  and  the   Prophets  and   the  Psalms." 
That  was  the  common  division  of  the  whole 
Jewish  Scriptures,  without  the  Maccabees, 
Tobit,  &c.  &c. 

Again — these  Apocryphal  books,  (accor- 
ding to  the  present  canon  of  the  Protestant 
churches)  are  excluded  from  the  true  canon 
by  the  earliest  Christian  writers.  Justin 
Martyr,  (A.  D.  150.)  quotes  not  one  word 
from  "these  Apocryphal  books.  The  first  ca- 
talogue of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
which  we  have  after  the  days  of  the  Apostles 
is  that  of  Melito,  preserved  by  Eusebiu?. 


80 


(Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  v.  c.  24.)  This  precisely 
accords  with  our  canon,  (excluding  all  the 
Apocryphal  books,)  except  that  after  the 
"  Proverbs  of  Solomon," -he  mentions  "  Wis- 
dom" which  Rupin  and  Pineda,  a  Romanist, 
say,  means  the  same  with  Proverbs,  i.  e. 
"  Proverbs  or  Wisdom." — Athanasius,  in 
his  synopsis,  gives  our  canon.  Hilary,  who 
was  cotemporary  with  Athanasius,  rejects 
the  "Wisdom  of  Sirach,"  "Judith,"  "To- 
bit,"  &c.  Augustine  calls  the  Jews,  the 
"  Librarians"  of  the  Christian  Church.  The 
Council  of  Laodicea,  (Can.  60th,  See  Lab- 
bseus  and  Cossarte  on  the  sacred  councils,) 
gives  our  canon  and  excludes  the  Apocry- 
pha,;— And  so  from  age  to  age,  down  to 
Erasmus,  we  have  a  line  of  testimony  against 
the  canon  decreed  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 
Itis  true  these  Apocryphal  books  were  consid- 
ered by  the  early  Christians  as  ecclesiastical 
Histories,  which  might  be  read  with  profit, 
bating  their  errors  and  extravagancies  ;  but 
not  inspired,  and  therefore  not  canonical; 
and  it  was  by  unperceived  degrees,  and 
through  a  series  of  ages,  that  the  way  was 
prepared  for  canonizing  them  at  Trent,  in 
the  I6ih  century.  Your  church  therefore  has 
not  the  pure  word  of  God.  Instead  of  handing 
down  the  truth,  it  has  exceedingly  corrupted 
it,  and  that  at  the  fountain  head.  At  this 
we  need  not  be  surprised,  when  we  call  to 
mind,  that  many  of  her  doctrines  rest  for 
authority  on  these  Apocryphal  books. 

By  the  same  facts  it  appears  that  the  Pro- 
testant canon  is  the  true  word  of  God,  as 
held  by  his  people  from  the  beginning. 
When  therefore  you  ask  me  how  we  know 
that  such  and  such  books  are  canonical,  you 
may  hereafter  know  that  we  do  not  learn  it 
from  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  has  corrupted 
the  canon.  And  when  you  say,  at  the  6th 
head  of  your  last  letter,  "  How  does  he,  (the 
Protestant,)  know  that  the  Book,  (the  Bible,) 
is  in  all  respects  now  the  same  that  it  was, 
when  it  came  from  the  hands  of  its  inspired 
authors?  Has  it  heen  correctly  translated? 
Has  it  been  fairly  copied,  from  one  manu- 
script to  another  previous  to  printing?"  I 
reply,  full  well  we  know,  that  if  this  matter 
had  been  left  to  those  hands  that  added  the 
Apocryphal  books  to  the  word  of  God — that 
forged  decretals,  and  erased  the  testimony 
of  the  Fathers — we  might  have  trembled  for 
the  ark,  and  despaired  of  the  word  of  God. 
But  a  gracious  Providence,  before  the  canon 


was  corrupted  by  your  church,  and  before  it 
was  in  its  power  to  shut  in  the  Bible,  had 
caused  it  to  be  translated  into  many  langua- 
ges— published  in  many  countries — and  pre- 
served and  transmitted  it  by  so  many  hands, 
and  channels,  that  we  need  look  not  at  all  to 
the  Church  of  Rome  for  this  precious  trea- 
sure. I  regret  that  room  is  wanting  to  ex- 
tend the  argument  for  the  true  rule  of  faith. 
But  I  must,  before  I  close,  notice  your  most 
wanton  admission,  as  to  the  evidences  of  the 
Saviour's  divinity  in  the  sacred  volume.  In 
the  1st  head  of  your  last  letter,  No.  9,  you 
hold  the  following  language;  "Let  him,  (the 
Protestant  reader,)  take  up  the  Bible,  and 
read  these  words  of  our  blessed  Redeemer, — 
'  the  Father  and  I  are  one' — turn  then  to  the 
other  words — ■  the  Father  is  greater  than  I.' 
That  one  passage  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
other  is  certain;  but  which  shall  take  the 
preference  of  the  other,  the  sacred  writings 
do  not  determine.^  The  obvious  tendency 
of  this  statement  is  to  sacrifice  that  eternal 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  scheme,  or  else  ar- 
rive at  it  by  the  authority  of  your  church. 
Indeed  in  so  many  words  you  admit,  that 
"  the  sacred  writings  do  not  determine  which 
shall  lake  the  preference  of  the  other."  And 
will  you  say  then  that  the  Bible  contradicts 
itself,  and  that  God  cannot  so  speak  to  man 
in  his  word,  that  he  shall  not  contradict  him- 
self? And  that  men  are  necessary  to  pre- 
vent God  from  contradicting  himself  in  his 
Revelations?  And  is  Bellarmine  so  lucid, 
and  so  plain,  that  you  insult  me  for  differ- 
ing from  you  as  to  his  meaning,  and  yet  tell 
us  that  God  cannot  so  speak  as  to  be  consis- 
tent or  intelligent  without  the  glosses  of  coun- 
cils and  the  mediation  of  Popes?  Does  lan- 
guage lose  its  sense,  or  thought  its  lustre, 
and  point,  in  the  hands  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
alone?  Truly  I  know  not  whether  it  be 
most  prof  ane  or  puerile — to  speak  as  you  have 
done!  But  there  is  this  good  from  so  great 
an  evil,  that  all  the  world  may  in  this 

SEE  HOW    IT    IS     THAT    RoME    AND    HER    SONS 
LIGHT    THEIR    CANDLES    TO    HELP  THE    SUN  TO 

shine. — In  fine,  he  who  runs  may  reconcile 
the  passages  you  cite,  and  so  greatly  slander. 
Without  the  full  and  proper  meaning  of  both 
Christ  could  not  have  been  the  Saviour  of 
the  world. 


Yours,  &o 


John  Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   11. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  April  12,   1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — The  polite  charge  with  which 
you  begin  your  last  letter,  where  you  accuse 
me  with  having  "  departed  from  the  dignity 
of  a  minister,  and  the  decencies  of  a  gentle- 
man," is  not  in  good  keeping  with  that  evan- 
gelical meekness,  which  is  the  loveliest,  if 
not  the  most  brilliant,  ornament  of  the  min- 
isterial character.  I  had  stated  indeed,  that 
several  of  your  assertions  were  "  untrue;" 
but  I  did  not  charge  you  with  either,  "  de- 
liberate falsehood"  as  you  assert,  or  with  a 
"  want  of  veracity."  On  the  contrary,  I 
suggested  that  you  had  been  deceived  by  fol- 
lowing in  the  beaten  path  of  calumny  and 
misrepresentation,  which  has  been  trodden 
with  impunity,  by  many  of  your  predecessors 
in  controversy.  You  seem  to  have  imagined 
that  I  should  receive  your  unfounded  state- 
ments, with  the  same  implicit  confidence  as 
the  young  lady  in  Baltimore,  to  whom  you 
addressed  the  famous  epistle  published  in 
the  Christian  Advocate  of  last  August.  But 
was  this  expectation  reasonable? 

I  engaged  in  the  controversy,  neither  as 
the  enemy  of  Protestants,  nor  as  the  echo  of 
their  prejudices;  but  as  the  advocate  of 
truth;  and  shall  I  not  oppose  assertions 
which  are  untrue,  so  often  as  you  leave  it  in 
my  power?  It  is  not  my  business  to  inquire 
who  was  guilty  of  the  "deliberate  false- 
hoods," and  "  want  of  veracity,"  which  you 
are  pleased  to  consider  as  charged  upon 
yourself.  It  is  enough  for  me,  that  on  each 
of  the  six  heads  enumerated  in  my  last  let- 
ter, you  have  asserted  what  is  "  untrue." 
To  the  arguments  of  that  letter  on  the  whole 
question,  I  refer  the  reader,  and  I  appeal 
with  confidence  to  his  candour,  to  say  whe- 
ther in  it,  I  have  departed  from  either  the 
"dignity  of  a  minister,"  or  the  "  decencies 
of  a  gentleman."  If  I  found  in  your  letters, 
assertions  which  are  untrue,  had  I  not  a  right, 
nay,  was  I  not  bound  to  expose  them  as 
such?  Which  of  us  offended —  you  in  mak- 
ing,— or  I  in  detecting  them?  When  you 
insisted,  did  I  not  propose  that  a  sworn  in- 
terpreter   of    languages   should   decide   be- 

M 


tween  us  ?  Was  this  ungentlemanly?  If 
you  were  as  convinced  that  those  assertions 
are  true,  as  I  am,  that  they  are  untrue,  would 
you  not  have  been  glad  of  such  an  opportu- 
nity to  have  them  cleared  up?  Would  not 
this  course  have  been  much  more  honourable 
to  you  and  your  cause,  than  that  which  you 
have  adopted,  by  indulging  a  fretful  pen, 
and  imputing  to  me  a  "  departure  from  the 
dignity  of  a  minister,  and  the  decencies  of 
a  gentleman."  Did  you  dread  the  presence 
of  a  sivorn  interpreter  ?  Then,  there  must 
be  cause  for  your  timidity.  This,  I  think, 
is  the  legitimate  inference  which  your  shrink- 
ing from  so  impartial  a  test,  will  warrant  in 
the  mind  of  the  intelligent  reader,  no  matter 
what  may  be  his  creed. 

But  you  will  say  you  have  not  shrunk  from 
it — and  refer  to  the  following  passage  for  the 
evidence:  "  If  you  will  add  to  the  points 
you  mention,  the  question  about  the  cate- 
chism of  the  Council  of  Trent" — (certainly 
I  will)  "and  the  other  catechisms"  (there 
has  been  no  dispute  about  them)  "and 
about  the  Pope  calling  himself  God;"  (The 
Pope  never  called  himself  God,)  also  the 
question  of  the  true  sense  of  my  extract  from 
the  Council  of  Lateran"  (with  great  plea- 
sure) "  and  the  interpretation  of  2d  Peter  i. 
20. — "(What!  abandon  the  Protestant  rule 
of  faith  ?  A  sworn  interpreter  to  decide  the 
meaning  of  Scripture — to  "  help  the  sun  to 
shine!")  ''then  I  will  promptly  agree  to 
such  a  reference,  it  being  understood  that  the 
parties  shall  be  neither  Roman  Catholics  nor 
Presbyterians."  The  "party"  may  be  a 
Turk,  or  a  Jew; — provided  he  be  a  good 
Latin  scholar,  and  an  honest  man.  I  am 
satisfied  to  leave  the  points  on  which  we  are 
at  issue,  to  the  decision  of  the  Professor  of 
languages  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 
Will  you  agree  to  this  reference  ?  If  so, 
advise  me  of  it  in  your  next  letter.  He  is  a 
Protestant  clergyman,  but  he  is  a  scholar,  and 
a  gentleman  of  literary,  as  well  as  moral  in- 
tegrity, and  I  want  no  more. 

With  regard  to  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  from  which  I  quoted,  it  is  now 
on   my  table,   and   I  invite  any  gentleman 


82 


who  may  choose,  to  come  and  see,  whether 
I  have  made  even  a  mistake,  in  my  quotation 
from  it.  It  is  the  original,  genuine,  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith. — And  any  other 
book,  containing  either  more  or  less,  is  not 
the  original,  genuine  Westminster  Confes- 
sion. I  considered  it  as  the  standard  of 
Presbyterianism  on  the  authority  of  Dr. 
Miller,  who  tells  us  that,  by  the  act  of  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia  in  1729,  Called  the 
*'  Adopting  Act,''  not  only  candidates  but 
professed  ministers  were  obliged  to  adopt  it 
as  such.  Now  it  did  not  occur  to  me,  that 
a  book,  which  in  1729,  ministers  were 
"  obliged"  to  adopt  as  the  summary  of  doc- 
trines contained  in  the  Scriptures,  could  so 
far  have  degenerated,  as  to  become  a  spuri- 
ous authority  in  1833.  Have  the  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Scriptures  changed  ?  If 
not,  why  was  the  summary  of  them  changed? 
But  without  explaining  this,  you  tell  us,  that 
some  fifty  years  ago,  the  "  offensive  pas- 
sages," which  I  have  quoted,  were  "solemn- 
ly rejected."  What!  Part  of  the  summary 
of  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Scriptures, 
"  solemnly  rejected!"  And  rejected,  why? 
because  they  were  "offensive!"  But  may 
not  the  same  authority  adopt  them  again, 
as  soon  as  political  circumstances  may  make 
it  convenient  to  do  so?  You  say,  "they 
are  not,  and  never  were,  a  part  of  your 
standards."  But  Dr.  Miller  asserts  posi- 
tively, the  contrary;  and  you  are  both  Pres- 
byterians, who  can,  no  doubt,  reconcile  the 
contradiction  without  the  intervention  of 
an  interpreter.  You  are  both  teachers  in 
Israel,  and  it  is  not  for  me  to  say  which  of 
you  has  stumbled  in  the  testimony. 

That  the  Westminster  Divines  were  "ap- 
pointed by  order  of  Parliament  to  make  a 
religion  for  the  united  kingdoms  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,"  is  an  historical  fact, 
at  which  I  am  surprised  you  should  take  ex- 
ception. The  Act  of  Parliament  by  which 
they  were  "appointed,"  and  the  wages 
which  they  received  from  the  public  trea- 
sury, four  shillings  per  diem,  for  their  la- 
bour and  expenses,  are  on  permanent  record. 
What,  then,  were  they  appointed  and  paid 
for,  if  it  was  not  for  "making  a  religion  for 
the  three  kingdoms?" 

So  much  then,  for  the  Westminster  Con- 
session  of  Faith,  and  my  quotations  from  it. 
As  to  your  charge  against  me  for  having  gar- 
bled Tertullian,  I  shall  do  full  justice  to  it  in 
the  sequel  of  this  letter.  In  the  mean  time 
permit  me  to  say  that  you  have  entirely,  (in- 
tentionally or  otherwise)  violated  your  engage- 
ment, in  departing  from  the  subject  of  discus- 


sion, which  is  the  rule  of  faith.  You  had  fre- 
quently informed  me  in  our  preliminary  ar- 
rangements, that  your  object  was  the  inves- 
tigation of  truth.  If  this  then  is  your  object, 
why  do  you  shun  that  process  by  which  truth 
and  error  may  be  distinguished  ?  Why  do 
you  discuss  doctrines,  before  you  have  deter- 
ed  or  at  least  examined,  the  principle,  by 
which  true  doctrines  are  to  be  tested  ?  The 
rule  of  faith,  and  not  the  prejudices  of 
our  readers,  is  the  tribunal  at  which  doc- 
trines must  stand,  or  fall.  The  rule  of  faith 
is  a  primary  question;  on  this  depends  the 
solution  of  every  other.  The  Protestant  rule 
of  faith,  stripped  of  its  sophistry,  is  "  every 
man's  opinion  of  the  Bible" — which  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  the  Bible  alone.  Pro- 
testants, in  following  their  own  opinions, 
have  taken  it  for  granted  that  they  were  fol- 
lowing the  "pure  word  of  God,"  the  "Bi- 
ble alone" — and  their  education,  books,  pa- 
rents and  ministers  have  all  conspired  to 
enbalm  this  delusion.  In  my  last  letter  I 
exposed  in  six  distinct  arguments,  the  falla- 
cy of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  and  instead 
of  attempting  to  answer  them,  you  indulge  in 
a  strain  of  invectives  against  the  popes. 
They  obliged  kings  to  "  hold  their  stirrup," 
and  "  kiss  their  feet."  But  every  Protestant 
child  knew  this  before.  These  are  mere 
nursery  tales — and  those  who  have  been  con- 
versant with  the  most  abusive  productions 
against  the  Catholic  religion,  I  am  sure  your 
letters  do  not  convey  a  single  new  idea,  much 
less  an  argument.  And  how  will  this  meet 
the  expectation  of  intelligent  Protestants  ? 
They  look  for  argument  and  reasoning — and 
you  furnish  them  with  the  mere  elements  of 
prejudice.  They  ask  for  bread,  and  you 
give  them  a  stone.  What  have  you  opposed 
to  the  arguments  of  my  last  letter?  Nothing 
that  I  can  perceive,  except  assertion,  invec- 
tive and  misrepresentation.  Your  first  has 
reference  to  the  Council  of  Lateran.  Catho- 
lics, as  I  have  repeatedly  stated,  understand 
the  distinction  between  doctrine,  discipline, 
and  ceremonies — and  candid  Protestants 
will  not  be  at  a  loss  to  comprehend  your 
reason  for  extending  the  infallibility  of  the 
church  to  every  enactment  recorded  in  her 
history.  You  have  even  coined  infallibility 
for  the  3d  canon  of  the  Council  of  Lateran, 
and  put  it  into  circulation  in  several  para- 
graphs of  your  last  letter — as  genuine  Ca- 
tholic doctrine.  It  is  however,  decidedly  spu- 
rious. I  again  repeat,  that  the  infallibility 
secured  to  the  church  by  the  word  and  pro- 
mise of  Jesus  Christ,  is  claimed  for  the  pre- 
servation and  definition  of  those  dotrines  of 


83 


faith  and  principles  of  morality  of  which  Je- 
sus Christ  made  the  revelation  to  the  world. 
But  according  to  your  misrepresentation, 
every  thing  done  by  a  council  or  pope  must 
be  infallible!  The  explanation  of  this  canon 
given  in  my  last  letter,  will  satisfy  the  can- 
did reader,  that  it  was  an  arrangement  enter- 
ed into,  by  the  common  consent  of  the 
church  and  states,  for  a  special  purpose,  and 
a  temporary  duration.  It  had  no  relation  to 
sovereigns,  but  only  to  lords  of  fees,  who, 
according  to  the  system  which  then  prevail- 
ed, were  the  possessors  of  frank-allodial  pro- 
perty. It  enacted  that  "  if  the  lord  of  a  fee, 
patronise  the  Albigenses,  he  shall  be  excom- 
municated by  the  Metropolitan  and  the  Bish- 
ops of  the  province;  that  if  he  does  not 
amend  within  twelve  months,  his  contumacy 
shall  be  denounced  to  the  Pope  who  shall 
declare  his  vassals  from  their  oaths  of  fealty, 
and  shall  expose  his  lands  to  be  occupied  by 
others."  Now  this  decission  was  based  on 
a  principle  which  is  universally  recognized. 
The  conditions  of  every  engagement  are 
reciprocal — and  if  the  lord  of  the  fee  was 
the  first  to  violate  the  conditions  on  which 
his  vassals  swore  fealty,  were  they  not  virtu- 
ally absolved  by  the  very  fact,  from  the  obli- 
gation of  their  oaths.  But  it  was,  you  tell 
us,  persecution.  Well,  admitting  that  was; 
is  it  for  a  disciple  of  John  Knox,  who  held 
that  it  was  not  a  privilege,  but  a  duty  to 
persecute  "  unto  the  death;"  and  of  Beza, 
who  wrote  in  defence  of  persecution;  and  of 
John  Calvin,  who  wrote  and  preached  and 
practised  this  doctrine;  is  it,  I  say,  for  the 
disciples  of  such  men,  to  brand  their  neigh- 
bours with  the  charge  of  persecution  ?  Why, 
Rev'd  Sir,  do  you  not  give  me  argument  to 
refute  on  the  rule  of  faith,  instead  of  brand- 
ishing weapons  which,  if  they  cut  at  all,  inflict 
the  deeper  wound  on  him  who  is  the  first  to 
wield  them.  Why  not  dismiss  the  rule  of 
faith,  asyour  signature  at  the  head  of  this  letter 
binds  you  to  do  1  If  we  were  treating  of  per- 
secution, I  should  find  it  as  ready  to  enlight- 
en the  public  mind,  with  a  faggot  snatched 
from  the  pile  which  consumed  Servetus,  as 
you  can,  by  a  reference  to  the  "decree"  of 
the  Council  of  Lateran  against  "  the  little 
flock  of  kids,"  the  Albigenses.  But  we 
should  leave  these  criminations  to  the  in- 
fidel, who  makes  them  a  pretext  for  sneering 
at  your  religion  as  well  as  mine — and  for  the 
bigot,  who  is  ever  ready  to  point  at  the  mote 
in  his  brother's  eye,  but  cannot  see  the  beam 
in  his  own. 

Before  I  pass  to  the  review  of  your  letter, 
I     must    notice   the    injustice    of    charges 


which  have  been  insinuated  by  yourself,  and 
formally  urged  in  several  Protestant  papers, 
not  excepting  even  the  sober-minded  Church 
Register  of  this  city.  When  I  argue  against 
the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  I  am  represent- 
ed as  arguing  against  the  Bible!  Is  this  just? 
Is  it  honourable?  I  defy  the  Church  Register, 
and  all  the  ministers  in  the  United  States,  to 
point  out  one  single  passage  that  can  even 
be  tortured  into  an  argument  against  the  Bi- 
ble, as  a  book  of  divinely  inspired  authority. 
When  I  point  out  and  prove  the  destruction 
which  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  brings 
upon  the  Bible,  I  am  represented  as  taking 
"common  ground  with  the  infidel,"  and  as 
aiming  a  blow  at  the  sacred  volume  itself! 
When  I  exposed  bad  logic,  it  appears  I  insult 
the  Bible!  No  sir;  but  I  show  that  the  Bible, 
under  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  is  as  de- 
fenceless as  the  desolate  vine  of  Judah;  the 
"  bear  from  the  woods"  may  ravage  it.  Is  it 
not  by  that  rule  applied  to  the  Bible,  that 
some  Protestants  have  robbed  Jesus  Christ 
of  his  Deity — that  others,  have  annihilated 
by  an  opposite  error,  the  two  other  per- 
sons of  the  Holy  Trinity?  Is  it  not  by  that 
rule  of  faith,  that  Calvin  taught  the  blasphe- 
mous doctrine  that  God  created  some  men 
under  an  unavoidable  necessity  to  be  damned 
for  his  glory?  And  when  I  prove  that  your 
rule  faith,  gives  identically  the  same  sanction 
to  all  these  doctrines — I  am  represented  as 
arguing  against  the  Bible!  It  is  astonishing 
that  pious  and  sincere  Protestants  do  not 
shrink  from  the  approbation  of  a  principle, 
which  makes  it  lawful  for  one  sect  of  Protes- 
tants to  teach  from  the  Bible  that  Christ  is  a 
mere  creature;  and  for  another  to  teach  from 
the  same  Bible,  that  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  only  mere  attributes  of  Christ,  to 
express  different  operations.  Now  blend 
these  two  consequences  of  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith  into  one,  and  you  see  the  belief 
of  a  supreme  being,  destroyed  by  the  combi- 
nation;— and  pure  atheism  extracted,  not  from 
the  Bible,  but  from  the  Protestant  mode  of 
interpretation!  According  to  one  party, 
Christ  is  not  God;  according  to  the  other  if 
Christ  is  not  God,  there  is  no  God!  But  you 
will  say  they  interpret  erroneously.  I  answer 
that  they  interpret  strictly  according  to  the 
rule  of  faith,  by  which  you  interpret.  You 
say  that  the  Bible  alone  is  your  religion;  they 
say  the  same  of  theirs.  You  say  that  God 
speaks  plainly  in  the  Scriptures;  they  say  that 
God  speaks  plainly  in  the  Scriptures — and 
that  by  the  authority  of  the  Protestant  ride  of 
faith,  and  your  own  acknowledgment,  they 
have  as  good  a  right  to  understand  what  God 


84 


says  in  the  Scriptures,  as  you  have.  You 
may  say  they  pervert  the  Scriptures,  but 
they  may  retort  the  charge  upon  yourself. 
In  a  word  I  defy  you  to  use  a  single  argu- 
ment, which  is  not  as  good  for  them  as  it  is 
for  you.  As  a  Catholic  I  know  that  the 
church  never  ceased  to  teach  since  the  days 
of  Jesus  Christ  the  doctrines  which  both  you 
and  they\mve  rejected — but  for  the  rest  I  look 
upon  them  to  be  as  sincere  and  as  moral,  as 
Presbyterians  are.  They  may  have  depart- 
ed further  from  the  doctrines  of  Christ;  but 
the  difference  is  in  the  degree  of  error,  and 
not  in  the  principle  by  which  it  was  engen- 
dered. 

Just  pause,  then,  I  pray  you,  and  survey 
with  a  cool  mind  and  a  dispassionate  eye,  the 
field  of  Protestant  Christianity.  Consider 
the  diversities  of  doctrine,  and  the  multitude 
of  sects  which  it  presents,  and  ask  yourself 
whether  it  is  possible  that  this  is  the  "  one 
sheep  fold''  of  that  church  which  Jesus  Christ 
established  on  the  earth.  If  your  own  breth- 
ren who  call  themselves  Presbyterians  are 
charged  with  the  impending  crime  of  heresy, 
for  a  slight  departure  from  your  standards, 
how  numerous  must  be  the  heresies  of  other 
denominations  who  condemn  your  standards 
and  the  doctrines  contained  in  them.  Heresy 
as  you  know  is  a  crime,  and  every  crime 
supposes  moral  culpability.  But  to  what 
source  will  you  trace  the  guilt  of  Protestant 
heresy,  as  you  understand  the  word?  To  the 
Bible?  That  would  be  blasphemy.  To  wil- 
ful perversion?  That  is  uncharitable  and  pre- 
sumptuous, since  God  alone  can  judge  in  the 
sanctuary  of  men's  thoughts. 

Where  then,  is  the  error,  of  those  that  err 
most  ? — for  you  are  among  the  first  to  pro- 
claim that  there  is  error  of  doctrine-  among 
Protestants,  and  consequently  heresy,  crime 
and  culpability.  But  does  not  the  man  of 
extreme  heterodoxy  do  all  that  is  required  by 
the  Protestant  ride  of  faith  ?  And  if  he  does, 
how,  according  to  your  own  principles,  can 
he  be  guilty  of  heresy  ?  The  only  heresy  is, 
that  his  opinion  and  your  opinion  about  the 
meaning  of  the  Bible,  are  different,  one. 
from  the  other.  And  if  this  be  heresy,  the 
number  of  the  elect  will  be  small  indeed. 
But  you  will  remember  that  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith  destroys  all  possibility  of  de- 
termining who  is  right  or  who  is  wrong. 
Can  this  then  be  that  "infallible  rule," 
which  Christ  "established  to  guide  us  in 
matters  of  religion,  and  to  determine  disputes 
in  his  church  ?" 

I  mentioned  in  my  last  letter  that  Jesus 
Christ  says  of  himself  in  one  place  "  the  Fa- 


ther and  I  are  one,"  in  another,  "the  Father 
is  greater  than  I'"— and  asked  you  as  a  fa- 
vour, to  show  me  how,  in  the  comparison  of 
these  two  passages,  you  could  save  the  divi- 
nity of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  destructive 
operation  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith  in 
the  hands  of  a  Unitarian.  This,  you  either 
could  not,  or  would  not  undertake.  But 
your  mode  of  defending  the  Protestant  rule 
of  faith  in  presence  of  this  test,  is  so  curious 
that  I  cannot  withhold  it  from  the  reader. 
I  shall  merely  use  a  few  parentheses  as  I  pro- 
ceed, which  shall  contain  corrections  of  mis- 
representation. My  remark  on  the  two  pas- 
sages above  was,  that  one  of  them  was  to  be 
explained  by  the  other,  but  that  the  sacred 
writings  do  not  determine  which  shall  take 
the  preference.  Mr.  Breckinridge  clears  up 
the  difficulty  in  the  following  manner:  "The 
obvious  tendency  of  this  statement  is  to  sa- 
crifice that  eternal  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
scheme,  (viz.  the  divinity  of  Christ,)  or  else 
arrive  at  it  by  the  authority  of  your  church. 
(The  tendency,  Rev.  Sir,  was  to  show  the 
utter  fallacy  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith.) 
Indeed  in  so  many  words  you  admit  (I  pro- 
claim, rather)  that  the  sacred  writings  do 
not  determine  which  shall  take  the  prefer- 
ence of  the  other.  And  will  you  say  then 
that  the  Bible  contradicts  itself,  and  that 
God  cannot  so  speak  to  man  in  his  word, 
that  he  shall  not  contradict  himself.  (I  have 
not  said  any  such  thing.)  And  that  men  are 
necessary  to  prevent  God  from  contradicting 
himself  in  his  Revelations?  (Not  at  all.) 
And  is  Bellarmine  so  lucid  and  so  plain, 
that  you  insult  me  (I  would  not  insult  a  child 
intentionally — but  when  you  misquote  au- 
thors, it  is  my  duty  to  correct  you,)  for  dif- 
fering from  you,  as  to  his  meaning,  and  yet 
tell  us  that  God  cannot  so  speak  as  to  be  con- 
sistent or  intelligent  (intelligible)  without 
the  glosses  of  councils  and  the  mediation  of 
Popes?  (I  never  told  you  so.)  Dues  lan- 
guage lose  its  sense,  or  thought  its  lustre  and 
point  in  the  hands  of  the  Holy  Spirit  a/one? 
(I  am  arguing  against  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith,  and  not  against  the  Holy  Spirit.)  Tru- 
ly I  know  not  whether  it  be  most  profane  or 
puerile — to  speak  as  you  have  done.  (It 
would  be  both  profane  and  puerile  to  speak 
as  you  have  taken  the  liberty  to  misrepre- 
sent.) But  there  is  this  good  from  so  great 
an  evil,  that  all  the  world  may  in  this 
see  how  it  is  that  Rome  and  her  sons 
light  their  candles  to  help  the  sun  to 
shine.  (And  yet,  Protestant  ministers  enjoy 
larger  emoluments  for  their  "  lighted  can- 
dles" than  even  the  "sons  of  Rome.'')    In 


85 


fine,  he  who  runs  may  reconcile  the  pas- 
sages you  cite,  and  so  greatly  slander.  (I  can- 
not see  how  I  slandered  them.)  Without  the 
full  and  proper  meaning  of  both,  Christ  could 
not  have  been  the  Saviour  of  the  world." 
What  a  strange  mode  ot  getting  clear  of 
a  difficulty! 

After  this  lucid  exposition,  the  orthodox 
reader  will  have  no  difficulty  in  saving  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  from  the  destructive 
operation  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  in 
the  hands  of  the  Unitarian. 

You  give  your  opinion  at  large  on  the  ca- 
non of  Scripture — and  although  I  should 
respect  your  opinion,  I  cannot  consider  it  of 
equal  authority  with  the  fact,  that  the  Catho- 
lic canon  had  been  established  and  recog- 
nised by  the  whole  church,  for  more  than  a 
thousand  years  before  the  pretended  Refor- 
mation. Luther  put  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews among  the  Apocryphal  books.  Cal- 
vin conferred  a  similar  honour  on  the  Apoca- 
lypse; and  you  or  I  have  quite  as  good  a 
right  to  strike  a  book  from  the  canon,  as 
either  of  them.  The  "  canonizing"  of  what 
you  call  the  Apochryphal  books,  you  tell  us, 
took  place  at  the  Council  of  Trent  "  in  the 
16th  century."  Here  you  have  committed  a 
slight  anachronism  of  about  1150  years. 
This  event  took  place  in  the  4th  century 
A.  D.  397,  in  the  Council  of  Carthage. 
However,  this  is  a  mere  trifle,  and  you  will 
never  think  of  it  again.  You  were  pleased 
in  a  former  letter  to  tell  us  that  none  but  the 
Apostles  were  inspiredor  infallible; and  con- 
sistently with  this  assertion  the  two  Gospels, 
and  the  Apostles'  Acts  were  uninspired ! — Do 
you  mean  then,  that  these  books  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  Apochryphal?  If  not,  why  do 
you  not  recall  the  assertion  alluded  to,  by 
which  you  sapped  with  all  the  influence  of 
your  signature,  the  foundation  of  their  in- 
spired authority?  What  will  Protestants 
think  of  their  champion,  who  denies  the  in- 
spiration of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke,  by  the 
unqualified  assertion*  that  none  but  the  Apos- 
tles were  inspired?  I  respectfully  asked  an 
explanation  of  this  on  a  former  occasion,  but 
like  the  affair  of  "Usher's  authority  among 
Romanists,"  you  forgot  it.  It  seems  you 
have  adopted  the  memorable  words  of  a 
Roman  governor — "what  I  have  written,  I 
have  written."  Thus  you  publish  on  the 
authority,  as  you  say,  of  a  '*  most  respecta- 
ble and  responsible  gentleman,"  that  one  of 
the  Priests  of  this  city,  on  a  particular  day, 
warned  the  people  against  reading  this  con- 
troversy. Now  this  statement  is  untrue. 
Will  you  then  give  the  name  of  your  author? 


Will  you  mention  the  church  in  which  he 
was  on  that  day?  Will  you  do  any  thing  to 
explain  this  strange  affair?  Will  not  the 
public  consider  yourself  as  the  author  of  the 
statement,  as  long  as  you  do  not  choose  to 
say  who  the  author  is  ?  And  how  can  you 
leave  yourself  exposed  in  this  manner? 

Again,  you  insist  that  the  Pope  anathema- 
tized the  Bible  Society.  This  is  untrue. 
You  attempted  on  a  former  occasion  to  prove 
it,  but  your  authority,  as  the  reader  may  per- 
ceive by  a  reference  to  it,  proved  only  that 
the  Pope  warned  the  faithful  against  your 
Bibles,  and  Bible  Societies,  just  as  you  warn 
the  people  against  the  Unitarian  Bible!  The 
motives  assigned  in  the  document,  are  such 
as  every  man  of  good  sense  will  approve. 
How  then,  Rev.  Sir,  can  you  have  the  cour- 
age to  repeat  this  unfounded  assertion,  when 
the  document  adduced  by  yourself,  supplies, 
not  the  proof,  but  the  refutation !  Truly  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith  must  be  a  magnifi- 
cent, cause  when  these  are  the  means  by  which 
you  are  obliged  to  support.  These  things 
may  do  very  well  in  Protestant  pulpits;  they 
may  excite  prejudice  and  uncharitableness 
towards  the  Catholics  and  their  religion;  but 
in  a  public  discussion,  when  Bt>TH  sides 
have  anequal  hearing,  you  should  be  cautious 
in  having  re-course  to  them. 

The  manner  in  which  you  refute  my  argu- 
ments on  the  rule  of  faith  is  truly  curious.  I 
will  give  the  heads  of  your  demonstrations. 

I.  "One  of  you  methods  of  defending 
your  church's  infallibility,  is  this,  if  the 
church  be  infallible  then  the  gates  of  hell  have 
prevailed  against  them,  and  the  Redeemer  has 
forgotten  his  promise  to  his  spouse. ''  This 
argument  you  placed  between  inverted  com- 
mas, to  show  that  you  had  taken  it  from  my 
letter.  It  is  not  mine,  however; — and  its 
want  of  sense  renders  it  very  easy  of  refuta- 
tion. My  argument  was,  that  Christ  pro- 
mised that  "  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  pre- 
vail against  his  church'' — and  that  the  infal- 
libility of  this  promise,  clearly  proves  the 
delusion  of  Protestantism,  since  the  Refor- 
mation was  founded  on  a  supposition  which 
clashes  with  the  promise  of  Christ,  viz.  the 
supposition  that  the  gates  of  hell  had  prevail- 
ed against  the  Church; — and  that  her  doc- 
trines required  to  be  "  reformed;"  that  is, 
thrown  back  into  the  Bible,  in  order  that  all 
future  generations  might  enjoy  the  glorious 
uncertainty  of  private  interpretation.  My 
argument  is  this — if  Christ  did  not  fulfil  his 
promise,  what  is  to  become  of  his  iafalUbili- 
ty?  But  if  he  did  fulfil  it,  then  he  was  still 
with  the  Church,  redeeming  his  promise,  when 


86 


Martin  Luther,  John  Calvin,  Henry  the  8th, 
and  Socinus  undertook  to  make  experiments 
in  her  doctrine,  and  to  dignify  the  battle  of 
their  various  and  conflicting  opinions,  with 
the  general  name  of  "  Reformation." 

II.  "Allowing  that  Christ  appointed  an 
infallibletradition  of  doctrineand  a  succession 
of  infallible  teachers,  then  the  church  thatdoes 
not  dispense  his  ordinances,  and  teach  his  doc- 
trines, as  he  instituted  and  taught  cannot  be  a 
true  church  of  Jesus  Christ."  Agreed.  "  Now  I 
will  prove  that  jour  church  has  corrupted  the 
ordinances  of  Christ,  and  the  doctrines  of 
Christ.''  And  how,  Rev'd  Sir,  do  you  prove 
this?  By  taking  it  for  granted  that  the  doc- 
trines which  Protestants  have  rejected,  are 
errors}  But  since  the  Church  had  the  pro- 
mise that  Jesus  Christ  would  be  with  her  ' '  all 
days,"  how  could  she  continue  to  teach 
these  errors,  unless  Christ  had  abandoned 
her,  and  violated  his  promise.  And  if  you 
prefer  to  say  that  the  promise  was  made  to 
the  Protestant  Church  or  churches,  how 
comes  it,  that  these  churches  were  born  after 
a  mysterious  gestation  of  some  1500  years 
from  the  period  when  Christ  made  those  pro- 
mises—-which  were  to  be  fulfilled  in  all 
days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the' world? 
If  Protestantism  be  the  Church  of  Christ, 
where  was  the  Church  of  Christ  before  Mar- 
tin Luther? 

III.  "  The  canon  of  Scripture,"  you  say, 
"used  by  your  church,  is  not  the  canon  of 
the  Christian  church."  Why  yes,  it  is  the 
canon  of  what  was  the  Christian  church  from 
the  days  of  Christ,  until  the  time  when  the 
gentlemen  mentioned  above,  undertook  to 
make  Christian  churches  of  their  own.  I 
defy  you  to  show  that  the  Christian  church, 
previous  to  Luther,  ever  held  a  different 
canon.  Your  arguments  are  generally  very 
unfortunate,  for  the  reason  that  they  are  ge- 
nerally in  direct  opposition  to  facts,  and 
without  facts,  in  a  discussion  of  this  kind, 
zeal,  learning,  and  even  logic,  are  absolutely 
useless. 

The  question  is  the  "  rule  of  faith."  In 
other  words,  the  question  is,  how  shall  we 
know  the  doctrines,  of  which  Jesus  Christ 
said,  "  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  con- 
demned." Now  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith 
reduces  the  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the 
sincere  opinion  of  each  individual  in  reading 
or  hearing  the  Bible.  If  I  have  misrepresent- 
ed the  Protestant  principle,  I  request  you  to 
give  me  the  true  practical  definition.  I  think 
that  every  Christian  who  can  and  will  reason 
consistently,  will  conclude  with  me,  that 
Christ  never  did  appoint  so  doubtful  and  pre- 


carious a  principle  of  guidance.  For  the 
proof  of  this  position,  I  refer  the  reader  to 
the  unanswered  arguments  of  my  last  letter 
on  this  branch  of  the  subject. 

Reason  tells  us  that  since  Christ  made  the 
belief  of  his  doctrines  necessary  for  salvation, 
he  must  have  provided  some  infallible  means 
for  ascertaining  what  those  doctrines  are. 
This,  my  Rev.  opponent,  has  admitted.  And 
yet,  he  does  not  attempt  to  show  that  the  Bi- 
ble, interpreted  by  each  individual  for  himself, 
constitutes  that  infallible  means.  Why? 
Because  his  arguments  would  be  as  good  for 
the  Unitarian,  as  for  the  Presbyterian, — as 
good  for  the  Universalist,  as  for  the  Metho- 
dist, Baptist,  or  Episcopalian.  If  the  Protes- 
tant rule  of  faith  is  right,  then  are  all  right. 
If  it  is  wrong,  they  are  all  equally  bound, 
before  their  conscience  and  their  God,  to 
abandon  it — for  truth,  next  to  God,  is  great- 
er than  all. 

Reason  tells  us,  moreover  that  no  society  can 
subsist;  and  history  assures  us,  that  no  society 
ever  did  subsist,  without  the  right  of  judg- 
ment, and  the  supreme  power  of  decision,  in 
cases  of  controversy  among  its  members. 
Even  in  this  country  where  freedom  is  sup- 
posed to  be  unbounded,  the  laws  are  not  left 
to  the  arbitrary  interpretation  of  each  private 
individual.  Is  it  consistent  then,  with  reason 
to  suppose,  as  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith 
teaches,  that  the  Son  of  God  revealed  a  reli- 
gion,— made  the  belief  of  it  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, and  yet  left  it  at  the  discretion  of 
every  individul  who  can  read,  to  determine, 
with  all  the  certainty  of  opinion,  what  it  is? 
So  far  reason  and  history  are  directly  against 
the  Protestant  rule  of  faith.  But  what  says 
the  written  word  of  God?  I  will  merely 
state  its  historal  testimony. 

How  were  controversies  decided  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation?  Not  by  the  private  in- 
terpretation of  the  Bible?  Read  "  Parlip. 
ch.  xix.  v.  10  and  11.  Every  cause  that  shall 
come  to  you  of  your  brethren,  that  dwell 
in  their  cities,  between  kindred  and  kindred, 
wheresoever  there  is  question  concerning  the 
law,  the  commandment,  the  ceremonies,  the 
justif  cations,  show  it  to  them,  that  they 
may  not  sin  against  the  Lord,  and  that  wrath 
may  not  come  upon  you  and  your  brethren,  and 
in  so  doing  you  shall  not  sin.  And  Amarias 
the  priest  your  high  priest  shall  be  chief  in 
the  things  which  regard  God."  This  is  the 
principle  appointed  by  God,  in  the  old  law. 
Why  should  it  be  different  in  the  new?  Jo- 
sephus  testifies  in  like  manner  (lib  2.  contra 
Apionem)  that  the  "  High  Priest  sacrifices  to 
God  before   the   other  Priests,    guards    the 


87 


laws  and  determines  controversies."  And 
even  Herod,  though  a  Jew,  instead  of  inter- 
preting the  Scripture  as  Protestants  do,  by 
private  opinion, — "assembling  together  all 
the  chief  priests  and  scribes  of  the  people, 
inquired  of  them  where  Christ  should  be 
born."  Matth.  xi.  4. 

Did  the  Saviour  of  men  appoint  a  different 
principle  whereby  to  "  determine  disputes  in 
his  church?"  Did  he  not  say,  "  Hear  the 
church;  he  that  will  not  hear  the  church,  let 
him  be  to  thee,  as  a  heathen  and  a  publican." 
But  how  can  we  obey  Jesus  Christ,  if  in- 
stead of  "hearing  the  church,"  we  make  our 
private  explanation  or  opinion  of  the  Bible, 
our  rule  of  faith  ?  Christ  would  not,  could 
not  enjoin  on  us  to  hear  the  church,  under 
such  a  penalty,  if  the  church  were  not  an  in- 
fallible authority.  That  it  is  an  infallible 
authority,  I  have  already  proved  in  my  fifth 
letter,  to  which  I  refer  the  reader.  Again, 
look  at  the  usage  and  practice  of  the  church 
from  the  earliest  days  of  her  history.  Look 
at  the  decision  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  first 
council  of  Jerusalem.  (Acts  xv.  28.)  "It 
hath  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to 
ws,"  &c.  See  again,  (Euseb.  lib.  5.  cap.  23. 
et  sequent)  the  controversy  about  the  time 
of  celebrating  Easter,  settled  finally  by  the 
decision  of  Pope  Victor,  A.  D.  198. 

In  255,  Novatian  was  condemned  by  the 
Roman  Council  under  Pope  Cornelius,  for 
teaching  that  sinners  whe  had  relapsed  after 
baptism,  could  not  be  reconciled  to  God  on 
their  repentance,  by  the  absolution  of  the 
church.     (See  Baronius  on  this  year.) 

Sabellius  was  condenmed  in  the  Council 
of  Alexandria,  under  Pope  Sylvester,  in  the 
year  319,  for  teaching  that  there  is  but  one 
person  in  God.  Of  the  Council  of  Nice, 
held  a  few  years  afterwards,  it  is  unneces- 
rary  for  me  to  speak. 

Thus,  then,  it  appears,  that  the  Catholic 
rule  of  faith  is  found  to  be  consistent  with 
the  light  of  reason  and  philosophy,  with  the 
experience  of  history,  with  the  testimonies  of 
Revelation,  with  the  practice  of  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  Church — whilst  the  Protestant 
principle  is  contradicted  by  them  all.  But 
why  should  I  not  refute  that  delusive  princi- 
ple, by  a  reference  to  the  practice  of  Protes- 
tants themselves.  If  God  speaks  so  plainly 
in  the  Scripture  that  every  man  can  under- 
stand what  he  says — why,  I  should  like  to 
know,  do  you,  ministers,  intrude  yourselves 
between  God  and  the  people  to  help  the 
Almighty  to  speak,  and  your  hearers  to  un- 
derstand ?  With  us  a  ministry  is  consis- 
tent— with  you  it  is  a  palpable  contradiction. 


Why  your  Confessions  of  Faith  and  Articles? 
But  so  it  is,  that  those  who  depart  from  the 
rules  of  religion  instituted  by  Christ, — those 
who  quit  the  rock  of  truth,  to  build  upon  the 
quicksands  of  opinion,  will  ever  be  involved 
in  the  labyrinths  of  self-contradiction  and  in- 
consistency. 

I  shall  now  conclude  by  giving  the  passage 
from  Tertullian,  which  you  accuse  me  of 
having  garbled.  But  first  I  must  correct 
your  misstatement  of  my  argument,  in  sup- 
port of  which  it  was  introduced.  You  say, 
it  was  "intended  to  show  that  Rome  was 
the  seat  of  the  true  church,  and  the  Pope  the 
supreme  head  and  successor  of  St.  Peter." 
It  was  not,  I  assure  you,  Rev'd  Sir,  intended 
for  any  such  purpose;  although  it  is,  even  for 
that,  a  very  appropriate  testimony.  It  was 
intended  to  show  that  in  Tertullian's  time, 
heretics  alone  had  recourse  to  the  rule  of 
faith  which  Protestants  now  profess  to  fol- 
low;— and  that  the  Catholic  Church  possess- 
ed by  prescription,  in  the  succession  of  teach- 
ing and  belief,  the  doctrines  which  was  re- 
ceived from  the  Apostles.  Tertullian  was 
showing  where  the  true  doctrines  of  Christ 
existed,  and  how  they  could  be  distinguished 
from  the  errors,  which  private  interpretation 
pretended  to  discover  in  the  pure  word  of 
God,  the  Bible  alone.  Let  me  then  give 
what  you  have  quoted  as  the  "  ungarbled 
passage,"  and  see  whether  it  does  not  bear 
me  out  more  strongly  than  the  briefer  ex- 
tract which  I  had  furnished.  "  Survey  the 
Apostolic  churches  in  which  the  very  chairs 
of  the  Apostle  still  preside  over  ther  sta- 
tions, in  which  their  own  letters  are  recited, 
uttering  the  voice,  and  representing  the  pre- 
sence of  each  of  them.  Is  Achaia  nearest 
thee?  Thou  hast  seen  Corinth.  If  thou  art 
not  far  from  Macedonia,  thou  hast  the  Phillip- 
pians  and  Thessalonians.  If  thou  canst  go 
to  Asia,  thou  hast  Ephesus;  but  if  thou  art 
near  Italy,  thou  hast  Rome,  whence  to  us  also 
authority  is  near  at  hand."  Now,  if  this 
does  not  prove  against  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  what 
proof  is.  How  does  he  refute  the  heretics? 
By  the  Bible  alone?  Not  at  all— But  by 
comparing  their  doctrines,  with  those  held  by 
the  succession  of  teaching  in  the  Apostolic 
churches — which  were  numerous  in  his  time. 
He  refutes  heresy  by  the  argument  of  pre- 
scription— by  showing  that  in  the  Christian 
Church,  truth  existed  before  the  heresy  was 
broached,  and  that  the  first  or  oldest  doc- 
trines, are  the  true  doctrines.  In  reference 
to  the  Church  of  Rome,  read  the  conclusion 
of  the  chapter  from  which  you  have  quoted — 


88 


Let  Protestants  reflect  upon  it:  "heresies 
were  not  of  that  church;  because  they  went 
out  from  her,  and  have  since  their  apostacy 
turned  all  the  malice  of  their  united  efforts 
against  her.v  One  would  suppose  that  in 
this  short  sentence,  Tertullian  was  the  histo- 
rian, or  prophet  of  the  calumnies  that  have 
been  heaped  on  the  church  of  Rome  for  the 
last  three  hundred  years.  But  no:  he  was 
the  historian  of  his  own  times,  for  the  adver- 
saries of  the  church,  have  always  been  dis- 
tinguished by  the  same  characteristics. 


Let  me  entreat  you,  in  conclusion,  not  to 
consider  me  as  intending  to  insult  you, 
whenever  I  find  it  necessary  to  correct  the 
unfounded  statements  of  your  letters;  and 
to  name,  or  authorize  your  friend  to  agree 
with  me  on  the  selection  of  a  sworn  inter- 
preter, to  decide  the  questions  on  which  we 
are  at  issue,  as  I  wish  the  decision  to  be 
published  before  the  meeting  of  the  General 
Assembly.     Yours,  very  respectfully, 

Jno.  Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   12. 


Rule  or  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  April  18,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

Sir, — It  is  difficult  for  me  to  express  to 
you  my  surprise  at  the  pertinacity  with 
which  you  reiterate  the  charge  of  «*  intole- 
rance" against  the  Presbyterian  church. 
After  the  statement  of  facts  made  in  my  last 
letter,  ignorance  can  no  longer  be  your 
apology,-  and  the  plea  of  inadvertence,  which 
we  were  ready  to  make  for  you  in  our 
minds,  is  silenced  by  your  assurance  that 
"you  have  not  made  even  a  mistake  in 
quoting."     You  insist  that   "  it  is  the  ori- 

final,  genuine   Westminster  Confession    of 
aith,  and  any  other  book  containing  either 
more  or  less  is  not  the  original  genuine  West- 
minster Confession."     But  the  question  was 
whether  this  was    the    Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  under  the  care  of 
the  General   Assembly?     Mr.  Hughes    had 
said  (Letter  7th,)  "The  standard  of  Presby- 
terianism  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  in    the    19th    century,    makes    it  a  sin 
against  the  second  commandment  to  tolerate 
a  false  religion  ;''    and  he  had  identified  it 
with  our  church,  by  a  direct  reference  to  its 
supreme  judicatory,    viz:     "  It  is    true    the 
General  Assembly  has  not  told  us  what  reli- 
gion it  regards  as  false."     And  to  show  us 
that  he  did  not  quote   from   an    antiquated 
copy,  or  a  foreign  edition,  (which  might  have 
been  the.  standard  of  the  -Scotch  church,  or  of 
some  other  church)   he  informed   us  that  it 
was  published   by  Towar  &  Hogan  in  this 
city,  in  1829! 

In  vain  do  we  tell  him  that  our  church  ! 
does  not  adopt  the  Westminster  Confession 
on  the  subject  of  "  Intolerance ; "  that 
Towar  &  Hogan  printed  no  edition  of  out- 
standards  in  1829— that  the  Synod  of  1729 
was  not  the  "General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,"  and  that  the  very  union 
which  incorporated  that  and  other  parts  of 
our  church  into  one  body  was  based  upon  the 
principles  of  equal  rights  and  universal  tole- 
ration. Having  then  so  grossly  misrepresent- 
ed the  public  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church ;  having  asserted  that  something  is 
found  in  her  accredited  book,  not  one  word 

N 


of  which,  as  every   well    informed    person 
knows,  is  contained  in  it;  and  having  been 
convicted  of  this  mis-representation,  you  have 
the  hardihood  to  deny  that  you  have  done 
our   church   the  smallest   injustice!     I  had 
really  expected  from  you  a  different  course; 
if  not  from  a  love  of  justice  and  truth,  at 
least  from  a  regard  to  your  own  reputation! 
Dr.  Miller's  repose  will  hardly  be  disturbed 
by  your  efforts  to  put  his  "  Letters  to  Pres- 
byterians"   at    issue     with    our    standards. 
You  have  certainly  been  in  good   company 
while  writing  at  his  side,  and  as  his  friend, 
I  feel  quite  willing  to  leave  his  defence  to 
be  gathered  from  the  expressive  contrast  be- 
tween your  letters  and  his,  as  they  have  si- 
multaneously appeared  in  the  columns  of  the 
Presbyterian.     I  close  my  notice  of  this  sub- 
ject, by  noting  it  as  one  of  the  items  of  the 
proposed  reference. 

I  have  been  much  struck  (and  not  I  alone) 
with  your  summary  method  of  replying  to 
my  arguments.  You  called  with  great  con- 
fidence, for  proof  that  the  catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  "  took  liberties"  with  the 
commandment  touching  the  making  and  wor- 
shiping of  images.  When  I  adduced  the 
proof,  you  drop  the  subject.  You  called 
on  me  to  vouch  for  the  faithfulness  of  the 
translation  and  the  continuity  of  the  sense 
of  the  long  extract  from  the  Council  of  4th 
Lateran  about  burning  heretics.  I  met  your 
call;  and  exposed  your  "  feudal"  defence  of 
that  atrocious  act — you  drop  the  subject. 

Again,  in  reply  to  a  whole  series  of  facts 
and  reasonings  on  subject  after  subject  in  dis- 
pute, you  say  "I  refer  the  reader  to 
my  fifth  letter,"  or  some  other  letter: 
and  when  we  turn  to  your  fifth  letter,  lo! 
there  is  no  answer  there!  Your  letters  aid 
each  other  in  this  respect,  like  the  idle 
boys  who  combined  to  deceive  their  master. 
"Jack,"  said  he  to  one  of  them,  "what 
are  you  doing?"  "I  am  helping  Dick, 
Sir."  "Dick,  what  are  you  doing?"  "Noth- 
ing, Sir.v  Such  defence  is  almost  as 
easy  and  as  victorious  as  the  colloquies  got 
up  in  Kentucky  by  the  Bishop  of  Bairds- 
town,  in  which  two  strolling  priests,  in  Thes- 


90 


pian  style,  personated  the  Romanist  and  the 
Protestant.  The  Protestant  fought  long,  and 
died  hard;  but  was  always  beaten! 

I  had  at  least  supposed  that  you  would  de- 
fend the  sacraments  of  your  church.  But  in 
reply  to  what  has  been  said  as  to  lier  abuse  of 
the  eucharist,  and  her  promotion  of  extreme 
unction  into  a  sacrament,  you  say  not  one 
word.  I  have  called  until  I  am  weary  for 
your  reply  as  to  the  admission  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  M'Guire.  As  the  whole  controversy 
turns  on  this  point  I  will  present  it  once 
more;  and  your  silence,  if  persisted  in,  must 
be  construed,  even  by  your  friends,  into  a 
confession  that  you  cannot  meet  it.  The 
admission  is  this,  "that  the  catholic  has 

ONLY  TO  EXERCISE  HIS  PRIVATE  JUDGMENT 
UPON  THE  SCRIPTURE  PROOFS  OF  THE  AU- 
THORITY OF  THE  CHURCH  :  THAT  ONCE  ES- 
TABLISHED, THE  CATHOLIC  IS  ENABLED  TO 
MAKE  AN  ACT  OF  FAITH  UPON  DIVINE  AU- 
THORITY."    Now  is  this  so,  or  is  it  not? 

I  have  still  further  to  say,  that  in  all  this 
discussion,  the  obligation  of  proof  is  on  your 
side.  Your  church  claims  to  be  the  only 
true  church,  and  asserts  that  out  of  her  there 
is  no  salvation.  Here  is  an  exclusiveness 
so  great  and  so  peculiar,  and  so  unlike  to 
all  other  churches,  that  the  whole  world 
has  a  right  to  claim  the  proof,  or  the  sur- 
render of  it.  Your  rule  of  faith,  contrary  to 
all  other  churches,  claims  the  authority  to 
decide,  I.  «  What  is  Scripture?  2.  "What 
that  Scripture  means?"  This  is  a  most  unu- 
sual, a  super-human  claim.  Especially  by 
one  who  is  a  party  in  all  these  questions. 
If  you  have  these  awful  trusts  committed  to 
you,  surely  you  ought  to  make  out  your  title 
to  them  very  clearly,  before  we  can  commit 
our  consciences  implicitly  to  your  lordly 
sway;  and  if  you  have  these  powers  from 
God,  the  proof  is  very  clear.  Moses  and 
Aaron,  the  ancient  Prophets,  the  Apostles, 
and  the  Lord  of  all,  made  out  their  commis- 
sions very  clearly,  by  such  proofs  as  appealed 
to  the  outer  senses  as  well  as  to  the  reason 
and  conscience  of  men. 

It  is  for  this  reason,  you  ought  to  have  be- 
gun with  your  own  ride  of  faith.  But  claim- 
ing to  be  Apostolical,  you  come  to  us,  and 
say  I  am  of  the  only  true  church;  your  church 
is  false,  prove  that  yours  is  not  false.  We 
answer,  prove  to  us  that  you  are  what  you 
say,  and  we  will  believe  you.  But  you  de- 
cline. Suppose  Jesus  had  said  to  the  Jews, 
' '  /  am  the  true  Messiah;  prove  to  me  that  I 
am  not."  Did  he  not  proceed  to  prove  it  by 
such  evidence  as  no  man  could  honestly  re- 
sist?   As  you  come  in  his  name,  and  to  the 


exclusion  of  all  others,  call  yourselves  the  suc- 
cessors of  his  Apostles,  why  do  you  not  fol- 
low his  example?  And  when  we  say  we  will 
prove  you  false,  while  you  cannot  prove  your- 
selves true,  you  crv  out,  that  we  ought  to  de- 
fend our  own  Rule"!  Surely,  then,  until  your 
rule  is  proved,  and  your  claims  are  fortihed 
by  proper  evidence,  our  rule,  the  usual,  uni- 
versal, good  old  rule,  stands,  and  withstands, 
and  will  still  stand. 

Your  last  letter  is  so  jejune,  that  I  really 
see  scarcely  a  thought  in  the  shape  of  an  ar- 
gument, which  is  not  a  "familiar  acquain- 
tance," that  has  appeared  and  re-appeared 
until  it  has  at  least  this  claim  to  antiquity, 
that  it  has  lost  all  novelty.  Allow  me,  then, 
to  pass  to  some  additional  considerations. 

You  have,  with  great  frequency  and  confi- 
dence, charged  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith, 
i.  e.  "The  Holy  Ghost,  speaking  in  the 
Bible,"  with  producing  Unitarianism  and 
every  species  of  heresy.  Even  as  recently 
as  the  close  of  your  letter,  No.  9,  you  ven- 
ture to  assert  that  no  one  can,  without  your 
infallible  church's  guidance,  decide  whether 
Jesus  Christ  was  equal  to  God  the  Father  or 
not. 

I.  For  the  reviving  of  your  own  recollection, 
let  me  give  you  the  following  coincidences. 
Rev'd  Mr.  Hughes,  (Letter  No.  9.)  "Let 
him,  (the  Protestant  reader,)  take  up  the 
Bible  and  read  these  words  of  our  blessed 
Redeemer,  '  the  Father  and  I  are  one' — turn 
then  to  the  other  words — i  the  Father  is 
greater  than  /.'  That  one  passage  is  to  be 
explained  by  the  other  is  certain;  but  which 
shall  take  the  preference  of  the  other,  the 
sacred  writings  do  not  determine."  Unita- 
rians are  more  consistent  than  yourself, 
for  they  admit  that  the  word  of  God  (as 
well  as  Bellarmine)  has  some  meaning,  and 
is  not  dependent  on  the  Roman  Church  to 
preserve  it  from  contradiction  and  absurdity. 
But  you  agree  with  them  in  this  respect,  that 
you  say  Christ's  Divinity  cannot  be  proved 
from  the  Bible,  without  infallible  interpreta- 
tion; and  they  say  it  cannot  be  proved  at  cdl. 
It  is  true  you  would,  by  authority,  make  the 
Bible  mean  what  you  say  its  obvious  sense 
does  not  teach.  But  who  ever  heard  of  au- 
thority giving  to  words  a  sense  contrary  to 
their  true  meaning.  It  is  absurd:  therefore, 
if  you  are  right,  so  are  they,  by  your  own 
concession;  and  in  the  end  you  reach  the 
same  fearful  issue  with  them.  It  is  a  cardi- 
nal point  with  Unitarians  that  "  The  doc- 
trine of  a  Trinity  in  the  Godhead  is  not 
taught  in  the  word  of  God."  Bale,  a  Roman 
Catholic  writer,  asks  (see  Protestant,  Vol.  4. 


91 


page  358.)  "  where  is  it  plainly  written  that 
there  are  three  persons  in  the  Trinity?" 
Tract  1.  qties.  9-  Here  both  parties  agree 
that  the  unaided  Bible  does  not  prove  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  Unitarian 
asks  for  a  new  revelation  before  he  will  be- 
lieve it.  The  Romanist  asks  for  a  new  and 
superadded  authority  before  lie  will  receive 
it.  But  as  for  the  Bible  alone  they  agree 
that  the  doctrine  is  not  to  be  looked  for 
in  it. 

Rev'd  Mr.  Hughes' Letter  No.  3.  "It 
is  a  fact,  that^  Christ  never  appointed  this 
rule; — because  he  never  wrote  any  part  of 
the  Old  or  New  Testament  himself; — he 
never  commanded  any  part  to  be  roritlen  by 
his  Jlpostles." 

Unitarians  take  precisely  the  same 
ground;  they  contend  that  the  sacred  pen- 
men were  credible  historians  who  wrote  as 
circumstances  required,  and  according  to 
the  dictates  of  their  own  judgment,  but  not 
under  the  .impulse  of  inspiration.  Their  ob- 
ject is  to  prove,  that  the  word  of  God  is  not 
an  infallible  book.  The  object  of  Mr. 
Hughes  is  to  show  that  it  is  not  sufficient  of 
itself.  Unitarians  make  inspiration  unne- 
cessary. Mr.  Hughes  makes  it  useless  and 
even  injurious,  without  the  aid  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  They  agree  wonderfully  in  this, 
that  they  dishonour  and  degrade  the  inspired 
word  of  God. 

Bellarmine,  and  indeed  Romanists  at  large, 
are  accustomed  to  affirm  that  many  of  the  I 
canonical  books  have  perished.  Bellarmine  I 
says  expressly  (book  the  4th  chap.  4.  on  the 
unwritten  word  of  God)  "  Many  books  truly 
sacred  and  canonical  have  perished."  "Mul- 
ti  libri  vere  sacri  et  canonici,  perierunt." 
Socinus,  Valkelius  and  others  affirm  the  same, 
viz.  "//  is  understood  that  many  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  have  perished.''''  The 
romanist  would  drive  you  in  this  way  to  the 
traditionsand  teachingof  his  infallible  church. 
The  unitarian  would  reduce  you  by  the  ir- 
reparable defect  of  the  canon  to  natural  reli- 
gion, and  uninspired  records.  But  is  it  not 
a  fact  which  stares  us  in  the  face,  that  they  en- 
tirely agreed  to  cripple  and  lay  in  the  dust 
the  Bible  alone  as  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith? 

In  fine,  when  Dr.  Priestly  says  the  Apos- 
tles reasoned  "inconclusively"  and  that 
Moses  gives  "a  lame  account  of  the  crea- 
tion," wherein  does  he  differ  from  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Hughes  who  says,  letter  No.  3.  6th  head. 
"does  the  bible  determine  the  dispute 
between  you  and  the  unitarian  on  the 

DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST?    SlNCE  THE  BEGIN- 
NING of  Christianity  until  the  present  hour 


no  dispute  has  been  determined  by  that  rule^ 
— the  Bible  alone.  "  I  hope,  therefore  that 
your  empty  clamour  about  the  tendency  of 
the  Protestant  rule  of  faith  to  make  Unita- 
rians, will  cease  until  you  have  satisfied  the 
public  on  the  above  evidences;  and  that  hence- 
forth you  will  bear  in  mind  that  because  Uni- 
tarians and  we  use  the  same  Bible  we  do  not 
hold  the  same  doctrines.  Our  rule,  like  the 
sun  of  our  system,  is  common  property.  It  is 
your  rule,  if  you  will  use  it.  It  is  our  rule, 
it  is  the  universal  and  only  rule,  of  all  men, 
and  you  had  as  well  attempt  to  put  your  fee- 
ble shoulder  to  the  burning  orbit  of  the  lumi- 
nary in  the  heavens  and  heave  it  back  into 
the  night,  as  to  stop  the  freedom  of  inquiry, 
or  arrest  the ''free  course  of  the  word  of 
God." 

II.  Much  has  been  said  during  this  discus- 
sion on  the  subject  of  the  true  canon.  In  my 
first  letter,  I  called  upon  you  to  defend  the  un- 
heard of  violence  done  to  the  word  of  God  by 
your  church,  in  "  adding"  to  it  a  large  vol- 
ume of  spurious  books  called  "  Apochry- 
phal."  In  my  last  letter  this  difficulty  was 
pressed  upon  you  at  some  length.  It  was 
shown  that  the  Jews,  the  Lord  Jesus  and  his 
Apostles,  the  early  Fathers,  the  Council  of 
Laodicea,  and  the  ancient  church  at  large 
rejected  these  Books — and  that  our  present 
I  canon  coincides  with  that  of  Christian  anti- 
quity. You  have  not  attempted  to  account 
for  the  absence  of  these  spurious  books  from 
the  canon  for  so  many  ages,  nor  to  meet  the 
objections  made  in  my  letter  No.  1,  6th 
head. 

While  you  thus  elude  the  force  of  truth  and 
faet,  as  to  the  Old  Testament,  you  have  stri- 
ven repeatedly  to  perplex  the  question  about 
the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  arguments  which  you  urge 
against  Protestants  are  in  singular  resem- 
blance to  those  used  by  infidels  against  Chris- 
tianity itself;  and  you  seem  to  have  proceed- 
ed upon  the  plan  of  making  Romanists  if  you 
can,  or  infidels  if  you  must.  Thus  in  the 
9th  letter,  4th  head,  you  say  "  you  cannot  be 
ignorant  that  several  books,  which  in  the 
first  ages  laid  claim  to  inspired  authority, 
are  not  in  the  canon.  Of  these  I  may  name 
a  few — the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
or  according  to  the  Apostles — the  memoirs 
of  the  Apostles — quoted  frequently  by  Justin 
Martyr,  and  different  tracts  under  the  names 
of  Peter,  Paul,  Matthias  and  other  Apostles." 
And  in  the  same  letter,  6th  head, you  write  a9 
follows:  "  How  does  he,  (the  "Protestant) 
know  that  the  book,  (the  Bible,)  is  in  all 
respects  now  the  same  that   it  was  when  it 


92 


came  from  the  hands  of  its  inspired  authors?  Isent  generation,  amidst  the  assaults  of  open 
Has  it  been  correctly  translated?  Has  it  been   enemies  and  pretended  friends. 


fairly  copied,   from  one  manuscript  to  ano 
ther  previous  to  printing  ?" 

I  have  often  been  curious  to  know  how 
you  would  meet  an  Infidel  or  a  Pagan  on 
this  question.  Bellarmine  was  rightly  com- 
pared by  the  writer  of  a  former  day,  to  the 
amphibious  bird  in  the  fable,  which  was 
sometimes  a  bird  and  sometimes  a  fish.  He 
was  a  bird  when  the  king  of  fishes  exacted 
a  tribute;  and  a  fish  when  the  king  of  birds 
exacted  it.  Bellarmine  speaks  like  a  Pro- 
testant when  he  reasons  for  the  Bible  as  the 
word  of  God  against  the  Libertines,  and 
others.  He  refers,  in  proof,  to  such  evidence 
as  this:  "At  sacris  Scripturis,  qua;  Pro- 
pheticis  et  Apostolicis  Uteris  continentur, 
nihil  estnotius,  nihil  certius,  ut  stultissimum 
esse  necesse  sit,  qui  illis  fidem  esse  haberi- 
dam  neget.  Notissimas  enim  esse  testis  est 
orbis  Christianus,  et  consensio  omnium  gen- 
tium, apud  quas  multis  jam  seculis  summam 
semper  auctoritatem  obtinuerunt :  certissi- 
mas  autem  atque  verissimas  esse,  nee  hu- 
mana  inventa,  sed  oracula  divinacontinere." 
Bellarm.  De  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  I.  cap.  II. 

"Nothing  is  better  known,  nothing  more 
certain  than  the  sacred  Scriptures  which  are 
contained  in  the  Prophetical  and  Apostolical 
writings, — insomuch  that  he  who  refuses  to 
believe  in  them  is  to  be  esteemed  a  fool. 
For  the  whole  Christian  world  bears  testi- 
mony to  their  notoriety,  as  well  as  the  con- 
sent of  all  the  nations  among  whom  for  so 
many  ages  their  supreme  authority  has  been 
acknowledged;  and  they  are  most  certain 
and  true,  comprising  no  human  inventions, 
but  the  oracles  of  God." 

He  proceeds  to  deduce  proof.  1.  From 
the  truth  of  Prophecy.  2.  From  the  won- 
derful divine  harmony  of  the  sacred  writers, 
though  of  so  many  different  ages,  places,  oc- 
casions, languages,  &c.  3.  From  the  in- 
terposition of  divine  Providence  for  the  pre- 
servation of  the  Scriptures.  4.  From  the 
book  itself;  which  claims  inspiration.  5. 
From  the  testimony  of  miracles. 

Now  will  this  reasoning  lose  any  of  its 
force  when  turned  against  yourself?  If  not, 
admit  it,  or  else  answer  it.  But  let  me  go 
on  to  say  to  you  once  more,  that  we  do  not, 
and  never  did,  depend  on  the  Church  of 
Rome  for  the  proof,  or  the  preservation  of 
the  word  of  God;  and  while  you  drop  apolo- 
gies to  the  Infidel,  remember  that  there  is  a 
high  road  of  evidence  through  which  the 
Bible  has  nassed  unhurt,  from  God  to  the  pre- 


It  would  require  a  volume,  (while  I  have 
room  only  for  a  few  paragraphs)  to  do  justice 
to  this  subject.     But  let  me  refer  the  reader 
to  Paley,  and  a  crowd  of  other  writers,  who 
have  reduced  to  order  and  fortified  with  un- 
rivalled power  the  evidence  of  the  genuine- 
ness, and  authenticity  of  our  Bible,  against 
the  assaults  of  infidelity,  and  the  Church  of 
Rome.     In  the  mean  time  let  me  say  a  few 
words,  that  there  is  no  evidence,  that  any  of 
the  spurious  books  you  name  existed   in  the 
first  century  of  the  Christian  era:  that  they 
were   excluded  from  the  churches,  and  from 
the  catalogues  of  the  canonical  books  :  were 
not  noticed  by  friends  or  foes  in  discussions 
about  Christian   doctrines:  and  besides  the 
silence  of  the  early  ages,  they  were  rejected 
and  "reprobated  with  a  consent  nearly  uni- 
versal  by   the  writers  of  succeeding  ages." 
You  will  hardly  deny  these  facts;  or  that  the 
converse  of  all  this  is  true  of  our  present  ca- 
non.    And  finally,  for  all  this  proof,  we  make 
no  more  reference   to  the  authority  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  than  we  do  to  the  authority 
of  the  Caesars  or  of  the  great  Mogul.    It  is  such 
proof  as  does  not  depend  upon  her  testimony 
as  a  church,  or  her  authority  as  a  judge  of 
controversies.     Indeed  it  is  a  very  singular 
fact,  that  the  church  of  Rome,  as  late  as  the 
fourth  century  rejected  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews!  "Apud  Romanos usque  hodie,  quasi 
Pauli   Apostoli  non  habetur — Jerome  (A.  D. 
345  to  420  De  viris.  Illus.)     Among  the  Ro- 
mans, even  at  this  day,  it  is  not  held  to  be  the 
apostle  Paul's."     If  this  mean  the  church  of 
Rome,  locally,  then  where  is  her  supremacy.2 
If  universally,  then  where  is  her  infallibility? 
one  must  fall. 

III.  I  come  next  to  your  argument  in  defence 
of  your  church  as  a  judge  of  controversies. 
Here  as  usual,  you  make  no  attempt  to  prove 
that  the  church  of  Rome  is  the  true  church  of 
Jesus  Christ.  This  you  take  for  granted.  But 
passing  this  in  silence,  you  ask,  "  How  were 
controversies  decided  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation?" 

This  is  a  very  important  question,  and,  as 
will  appear  below,  of  most  unhappy  omen  to 
the  church  of  Rome.  You  cite  (Paralipo- 
mena)  2  Chron.  19  chap,  verse  9.  10.  You 
omit  the  8th,  which  is  as  follows,  "Moreover 
did  Jehoshaphat  set  for  judgment,  &c."  Ob- 
serve then,  that  this  was  a  court  of  the  king's 
ordering. 

You  also  omit  the  latter  part  of  the  11th 
verse,  viz — "  Jind  also  Zebediah  the  son  of 
Ishmael  shall  be  chief  in  the  things  which 


i)3 


regard  the  King.''''  (I  quote  as  you  have  done 
from  the  Vulgate.)  This  verse  shows  that 
there  were  two  Presidents  of  this  court, — 
one  for  the  ecclesiastical  causes,  "the  things 
which  regard  God,"  the  other  for  the  civil, 
"for  all  the  things  regarding  the  King." 
But  we  suppose  the  resemblance  is  near 
enough,  especially  as  you  have  sometimes 
had  three  Popes; — and  as  the  councils  were 
sometimes  convoked  by  the  -Emperors. 

And  now  as  to  the  argument.  You  say, 
"  This  is  the  principle  appointed  by  God 
in   the   old  law;   ivhy  should   it   be   differ  - 


unto  him,  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
Blessed?  And  Jesus  said,  I  am:  and  ye 
shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right 
hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven.  Then  the  high  priest  rent  his 
clothes  and  saith.  What  need  we  any  fur- 
ther witnesses?  Ye  have  heard  the  blasphe- 
my: what  think  ye?  And  they  all  condemned 
him  to  be  guilty  of  death." 

4.  They  then  handed  him  over  to  the  civil 
power.  Mark  xv.  1:  "  And  straightway  in 
the  morning  the  chief  priests  held  a  consulta- 
tion   with   the   elders  and   scribes,  and   the 


ent  in  the  new?"     "Even   Herod,   though  a  whole  council,  and  bound  Jesus,  and  carried 
Jew,  instead  of  interpreting  the  Scripture  as \him  away,  and  delivered  him  to  Pilate." 
Protestants    do,     by   private    opinion, — as-       5.  And  the  civil  power  ordered  him  to  be 
sembling  together  all  the  chief  priests  and  |  crucified,    and    Pilate    executed    their    will 
scribes  of  the  people,  inquired  of  them  where 


Christ  should  be  born."  Matth.  xi.  4.' 
Your  reasoning,  then,  is  this,  that  the  high 
priest  and  the  sanhedrim  were  the  judges 
of  controversy  under  the  old  law; — and  of 
course  by  the  same  principle,  the  Pope  and 
council  are  the  judges  of  controversy  under 
the  new.  This  you  assert  when  you  ask, 
"did  the  Saviour  of  men  appoint  a  dif- 
ferent principle  whereby  to  determine  dis- 
putes in  his  church."  And  again,  this  judge 
of  controversy  was  ultimate  and  infallible. 
For  Josephus,  as  quoted  by  you,  tells  us,  lithe 
High  Priest  guards  the  law  and  determines 
controversies.''  The  High  Priest,  then,  and 
the  Council  were  the  judges  of  controversy, 
and  from  their  decision  which  was  final  and 
infallible,  there  was  no  appeal.  Let  us  ap- 
ply the  reasoning  to  the  condemnatiun  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

1.  Jesus  was  arrested  by  order  of  the  "  high 
priests,  scribes  and  elders."  Mark  xiv.  43: 
"And  immediately,  while  he  yet  spake, 
cometh  Judas,  one  of  the  twelve,  and  with 
him  a  great  multitude,  with  swords  and  staves, 
from  the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes,  and 
the  elders.'' 

2.  When  arrested  he  was  brought  directly 
before  the  regular  tribunal.  Mark  xiv.  53: 
"  And  they  led  Jesus  away  to  the  high  priest: 
and  with  him  were  assembled  all  the  chief 
priests,  and  the  elders,  and  the  scribes." 

3.  They  proceeded  to  try  him,  and  con- 
demn him  for  pretended  ''Heresy'' — "as 
Judges  of  Controversy,"  and  they  charged 
him  "with  blasphemy"  and  condemned  him 
to  die!  Mark  xiv.  60—64:  "And  the  high 
priest  stood  up  in  the  midst,  and  asked  Jesus, 
saying,  Answerest  thou  nothing?  what  is  it 
which  these  witness  against  thee  ?  But  he 
held  his  peace,  and  answered  nothing. 
Again  the  high  priest  asked  him,  and  said 


though  he  pronounced  Jesus  an  innocent 
man  ;  and  he  died  for  his  doctrines.  No 
other  charge  was  brought  against  him.  Matt. 
xxvii.  24 — 26:  "  When  Pilate  saw  that  he 
could  prevail  nothing,  but  that  rather  a  tu- 
mult was  made,  he  took  water,  and  washed 
his  hands  before  the  multitude,  saying,  I  am 
innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  just  person;  see 
ye  to  it.  Then  answered  all  the  people,  and 
said,  His  blood  be  on  us,  and  on  our  children. 
Then  released  he  Barabbas  unto  them;  and 
when  he  had  scourged  Jesus,  he  delivered 
him   to  be   crucified." 

Never  did  the  universe  witness  so  bloody 
a  drama!  Never  did  a  council  commit  a 
deed  so  atrocious !  But  here  was  the  "  judge 
of  controversies,"  the  high  priest,  the  Pope's 
original, — here  the  regular  council,  and  sit- 
ting in  judgment  "  on  doctrine,"  not  as  a 
"feudal,"  or  civil,  but  "ecclesiastical  court." 
Then  were  they  fallible  or  infallible?  Did 
they  decide  right  or  wrong?  Such  is  your 
reasoning,  that  you  are  bound  by  consist- 
ency to  defend  their  acts, — or  by  candour, 
to  say  that  a  council  though  regularly  con- 
vened, and  general,  with  the  Pope  presiding, 
may  err  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  morals! 

IV.  The  Scripture,  according  to  the  ancient 
Fathers,  is  the  sole  judge  of  controversies  and 
interpreter  of  itself  . 

It  was  Augustin  who  laid  down  this  great 
radical  principle,  "  there  a  man  is  said  to  be 
judge  where  he  has  power  and  authority  to 
correct."  On  this  principle  your  church 
has  actually  proceeded,  in  assuming  to  be 
judge  of  controversies,  for  she  has  added 
a  large  volume  to  the  word  of  God;  (as  we 
proved  in  letter  No.  IX.)  and  though  a  par- 
ty in  the  controversy,  she  assumes  to  judge 
with  authority  in  her  own  cause. 

Optatus,  A.  D.  370,  held  the  following 
language :  "  You  say  it  is  lawful,  we  say  it 


94 


is  not  lawful;  the  people's  souls  do  doubt 
and  waver,  let  none  believe  you  nor  us,  we 
are  all  contending  parties,  judges  must  be 
sought  for:  if  Christians,- they  cannot  be 
given  on  both  sides,  (for  truth  is  hindered  by 
affections.)  A  judge  without  must  be  sought 
for;  if  a  Pagan,  he  cannot  know  the  Chris- 
tian mysteries;  if  a  Jew,  he  is  an  enemy  to 
Christian  Baptism:  no  judgment  therefore  of 
this  matter  can  be  found  on  earth;  a  Judge 
in  heaven  must  be  sought  for.  But  why 
knock  we  at  heaven,  when  we  have  the  Testa- 
ment of  Christ  in  the  Gospel."  (De  ccelo 
quasrendus  est  Judex,  sed  ut  quid  pulsa- 
mus  ad  coelum  habemus  in  Evangelio  Testa- 
mentutn.  Opt.  lib.  5  contr.  Par  men.  Donat.) 
The  above  is  on  the  question  of  re-baptizing, 
in  his  discussion  with  "  Heretics." 

Chrysostom,  who  was  ordained  Bishop  of 
Constantinople  A.  D.  398,  makes  the  follow- 
ing very  striking  and  appropriate  comments 
upon  the  subject  at  issue:  "  Let  us  follow  the 
scope  of  the  Holy  Scripture  in  interpreting 
itself:  when  it  teacheth  some  hard  thing, 
it  expoundeth  itself,  and  suftereth  not  the 
hearer  to  err.  Let  us  not  fear,  therefore, 
to  put  ourselves  with  full  sail  into  the  sea  of 
'  Scriptures,'  because  we  shall  be  sure  to  find 
the  word  of  God  for  our  pilot,  (Chrys.  Horn. 
13,  in  Gen.  Chrys.  in  1  Thes.  Horn.  7.) 
The  same  author  prompts  a  Gentile  to  the 
use  of  the  word  of  God  in  the  following  lan- 
guage: "  When  thou  buyest  a  garment, 
though  thou  have  no  skill  in  weaving,  yet 
thou  sayest  not  I  cannot  buy  it,  they  will 
deceive  me:  but  dost  use  all  means  to  learn 
how  to  know  it :  do,  therefore,  those  things 
which  are  to  be  done,  seek  all  those  things  of 
God,  and  He  altogether  will  reveal  it  unto 
thee."  (Idem.  Homit.  33.  in  Act. 

Athanasius,  who  flourished  about  the 
year  335,  speaking  of  the  Bible  says:  "  For 
the  holy  and  divinely  inspired  Scriptures 
are  of  themselves  sufficient  for  the  discovery 
of  the  truth."  (Speech  against  the  Gentiles.) 
It  is  very  important  here  to  observe,  that  this 
Father,  in  his  catalogue  of  the  books  of 
Scripture,  gives  precisely  our  canon,  exclud- 
ing from  the  inspired  word  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  Judith,  Tobias,  &c.  &c.  From 
this  it  appears,  1.  That  ours  is  the  true 
canon,  while  Roman  Catholics  have  corrupt- 
ed the  word  of  God,  by  the  addition  of  wri- 
tings called  by  Athanasius  "not  canoni- 
cal." 2.  That  this  our  very  canon  is  a  svffi- 
cient  rule  for  the  discovery  of  divine  truth. 

I  might  cite  many  other  testimonies  from 
the  Fathers;  but  these  may  serve  as  speci- 
mens in  proof  of  the  fact,  that  they  held  the 


Protestant  rule  of  faith.  It  is  true  "The 
Fathers"  were  not  unanimous,  neither  were 
they  inerrable.  The  Roman  Catholic  rule 
of  faith  as  we  have  elsewhere  shown,  binds 
its  followers  "never  to  take  or  interpret 
them  (the  sacred  Scriptures)  otherivise  than 
according  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers."  The  defect  of  such  unanimity  ut- 
terly explodes  the  rule  which  rests  upon  it. 
But  that  the  Protestant  rule  was  known, 
owned,  practised  from  the  earliest  ages,  is 
sufficiently  evident  from  the  quotations  al- 
ready adduced;  and  as  the  pruning-knife 
of  Papal  expurgation  has  been  applied  even 
to  these  Fathers,  we  may  well  suppose  that 
what  is  left  in  the  form  of  proof  for  our  own 
rule  is  indisputable  authority  with  Roman 
Catholics.  In  a  word,  it  appears  according 
to  testimony  which  you  have  admitted  to  be 
authentic,  that  the  word  of  God  is  the  sole 
Judge  of  controversy  and  its  own  interpreter. 

As  to  the  famous  passage  from  Tertullian, 
I  would  ask  you,  with  all  due  respect  and 
candour,  why  you  did  not  cite  the  passage  in 
the  first  instance,  as  you  have  cited  it  at  last? 
You  charge  me  with  injustice  as  to  the  pas- 
sage from  Bellarmine  on  the  power  of  the 
Pope.  But  here  the  whole  sense  of  the  pas- 
sag  is  altered,  and  the  very  shape  of  it  is 
changed.  Yet  even  upon  your  own  admis- 
sion, Tertullian  makes  many  apostolical 
churches  and  many  apostolical  chairs.  And 
these  churches  and  these  chairs  were  of  equal 
authority  one  with  another;  and  to  be  consult- 
ed indifferently  according  to  their  vicinity  to 
the  inquirer.  And  also,  "the  letters  of  the 
apostles,  uttering  their  voice  and  represent- 
ing the  presence  of  each  of  them,  are  re- 
cited" as  supreme  authority.  Then,  on  your 
own  reasoning,  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Ephe- 
sus,  and  Corinth,  as  well  as  Rome,  were 
apostolical  seats.  And  "  the  writings  of  the 
apostles,"  and  not  a  living  infallible  judge 
'•'was  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  established 
by  Christ  to  guide  us  in  matters  of  religion 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  disputes  in  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

Your  attempt  to  pervert  my  argument,  on 
the  apostolical  succession,  shows  the  despera- 
tion of  a  defence,  which  was  feeling  for  a 
foundation,  and  could  find  none.  You  say, 
in  letter  No.  9,  "If  the  Apostles  alone  were 
inspired  and  infallible,  as  you  assert,  then 
what  is  to  become  of  the  two  Gospels  of  St. 
Luke  and  St.  Mark,  what  is  to  become  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles?  It  is  well  known 
that  the  authors  of  these  books  were  not 
Apostles,  and  had  not  seen  the  Lord."  Here 
you   but  resort  to  the  old  practice  of  injur- 


95 


ing  the  canon,  rather  than  spare  the  Protestant. 
It  is  known  to  yourself,  that  Mark's  writings 
received  the  sanction  of  Peter,  and  Luke's  of 
Paul.  The  Apostle  Paul  says,  in  his  Epistles, 
"  Paul  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  and  Timo- 
theus  our  brother."  "Paul  called  to  be  an 
Apostle  and  Sosthenes  our  brother."  The 
writings  were  theirs,  whether  penned  by 
themselves,  or  others  under  their  eye. 

And  now  as  to  the  reference  to  a  sworn 
interpreter,  you  contradict  yourself  and  mis- 
represent me  in  two  successive  paragraphs, 
by  saying  in  the  first,  "You  shrink  from  so 
impartial  a  test."  "Did  you  dread  the 
presence  of  a  sworn  interpreter?"  and  then 
own  that,  in  my  last  letter,  I  agree  to  such  a 
reference. 

On  this  whole  subject  I  would  say,  1.  By 
this  very  proposal  you  abandon  the  principle 
on  which  you  heretofore  proceeded;  which 
is,  that  a  fallible  interpreter  cannot  be  au- 
thority. 2.  While  the  opinions  of  learned 
and  good  men,  shall  always  have  great 
weight  with  me,  yet  my  principles  forbid  me 
to  commit  the  last  decision  to  any  human 
tribunal.  3.  We  are  at  issue  about  transla- 
tions, and  about  facts.  For  example,  you 
deny  that  your  church  forbids  the  reading  of 
the  Scriptures.  I  affirm  it.  So  of  several 
other  facts,  some  clothed  in  a  dead  language, 
and  some  not.  In  the  reference  proposed, 
I  wish  to  settle  each  class  of  questions  so 
far  as  a  reference  can  do  it.  4.  I  wish  the 
fair  translation  of  several  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, particularly  that  mentioned  in  my  last 


letter,  that  the  same  may  be  spread  out  be- 
fore the  public.  5.  With  these  statements, 
I  do  most  cordially  agree  to  the  reference  it- 
self, and  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wylie,  the  re- 
spected Professor  of  Languages,  named  by 
you  as  our  referee  ;  and  I  agree  to  make 
him  a  standing  referee,  so  that  whenever 
you  please,  he  may  be  called  on  for  this  pur- 
pose. As  soon  as  convenient,  I  am  prepared 
through  a  friend  to  proceed  in  this  refer- 
ence. 

A  gentleman,  who  knew  the  feelings 
of  a  gentleman,  should  have  understood, 
without  explanation,  the  delicate  nature  of 
my  situation  in  regard  to  the  name  of  my 
informant,  as  to  "  the  warning  against  read- 
ing the  controversy."  I  did  not  proceed  in 
this  matter  without  a  responsible  name;  and 
even  then,  knowing  the  defects  of  tradition, 
I  asked  it  of  you  as  a  question,  whether  my 
informant  was  mistaken,  and  left  it  open  for 
correction.  I  have  now  the  name  before  me, 
and  the  permission  to  make  it  public,  if  re- 
quested by  the  Bishop.  If  he  demand  it, 
therefore,  it  shall  be  given. 

I  wish  to  say,  in  conclusion,  that  our  rules, 
which  you  profess  greatly  to  respect,  require 
us  to  pass  at  some  time,  and  I  think  the  public 
expect  us  to  pass  soon,  to  other  topics.  I  give 
you  notice,  therefore,  that  I  shall  avail  myself 
very  soon,  if  my  life  is  spared,  of  this  privi- 
lege, reserving  the  right  to  respond  to  your 
arguments,  if  you  choose  to  linger  on  the 
threshold.     Yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY Nb.   13 


Rule  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  April  26,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — As  ray  reference  to  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  touching  the 
power  and  duty  of  magistrates,  seems  to  have 
given  you  some  pain,  I  shall  commence  by 
saying  all  I  have  to  say  on  that  subject. 
This  is  the  more  necessary,  as  you  recall  the 
plea  of  "ignorance  and  inadvertence,"  which 
you  had  hitherto  mercifully  extended. 

It  is  a  fact  that  Towar  &  Hogan  published 
the  Westminster  Confession  in  1829.  It  is 
a.  fact  that  it  contains  the  passages  I  quoted, 
as  to  intolerance  and  the  magistrate's  duty 
in  matters  of  religion — and  it  is  a.  fact,  which 
rests  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Miller,  that 
ministers  and  candidates  were  "  obligeiV  to 
adopt  this  Confession  as  the  "  standard  of 
Presbyterianism,"  exactly  one  hundred  years 
before.  Consequently,  it  is  a  fact,  that  if 
this  be  not  now  your  standard,  it  is  because 
you  have  departed,  in  so  much,  at  least,  from 
the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  "  saints." 
The  passages,  which  you  now  call  "  offen- 
sive,'''' were  supported  by  seven  or  eight  dif- 
ferent texts  of  Scripture;  and  I  thought, 
that  these  texts  might,  possibly,  have  the 
same  meaning  now,  that  they  had  in  1729. 
Indeed,  until  you  advised  me  of  it,  I  did 
not  conceive  how  these  scriptural  authori- 
ties could  have  become  so  "offensive," 
in  the  interval,  that  they  deserved  to  be 
"solemnly  rejected.'''  The  doctrines,  which 
they  were  intended  to  support,  are  as  true 
(though  perhaps  not  so  palateable)  since  the 
revolution,  as  they  had  been  before.  If,  in 
theirs/  instance,  they  were  false,  it  was  in- 
jurious to  the  written  Word  of  God  to  em- 
ploy it  so  profusely  for  their  support — and  it 
was  tyrannical  to  "oblige"  either  "professed 
ministers"  or  candidates  to  adopt  them.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  they  were  true,  I  do  not 
see  why  they  have  been  "  solemnly  rejected. " 
The  doctrines  of  Christ  do  not  change  with 
the  shiftings  of  every  political  gale.  And 
though  the  British  Lion  gave  place  to  the 
Eagle  of  Independence,  "  some  fifty  years 
ago,"  yet,  I  find  it  difficult  to  discover,  by 
what  mysterious  process,  this  event  could 
o 


have  nullified  the  scriptural  doctrines  of  your 
standards,  or  converted  them  into  "offensive 
passages."  Albeit,  it  seems  that  the  work 
of  "Reformation"  in  the  doctrines  of  Christ, 
is  not  the  peculiar  privilege  of  any  age — that 
the  children  are  not  satisfied  with  what  their 
fathers  have  done  in  this  behalf — and  that  I 
was  led  astray  by  taking  it  for  granted  that 
the  "Standard  of  Presbyterianism"  in  the 
19th  century  was  the  same,  that  ministers 
had  been  "obliged  to  adopt"  in  the  18th. 
What  it  will  be,  in  fifty  years  more,  is  not 
known  to  any  man  living.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain, that  the  melody  of  Calvin  and  the  cho- 
rus of  the  Westminster  divines,  have  been 
enriched  with  variations  in  every  key.  I 
suppose,  however,  that  in  reference  to  your 
standards  I  might  venture  (with  safety)  to 
go  as  far  back,  as  the  year  1821.  In  the 
"  amended"  edition  of  that  year,  although 
the  civil  magistrates  are  shorn  of  the  preroga- 
tives, with  which  the  Westminster  divines 
and  the  "Adopting  Act"  of  1729  had  invest- 
ed them,  as  to  the  words,  yet  they  are  clothed 
with  undefined  attributes,  in  which  a  keen 
eye  mav  discover  the  lurking  essence  of  the 
very  passages,  which  are  so  offensive.  In 
page  105  they  (civil  magistrates)  are  honour- 
ed with  an  office  full  of  tenderness  and  pa- 
rental affection.  "  As  nursing  fathers,  it 
is  their  duty  to  protect  the  church  of  our 
common  Lord,  without  giving  the  preference 
to  any  denomination  of  Christians  above  the 
rest,"  &c.  The  latter  clause  might  seem  to 
have  been  added,  to  prevent  the  passage  from 
being  "  offensive."  But  as  soon  as  it  will  be 
convenient  for  the  Assembly  to  tell  us,  what 
is  the  "church  of  our  common  Lord,"  may 
not  one  half  of  the  Christian  denominations, 
who  enjoy  the  equal  protection  of  the  Con- 
stitution, be  astonished  to  find  themselves 
excluded  from  the  pale — and  regarded  by 
the  "nursing  fathers"  of  the  other  half,  as 
step-children — or  worse  ?  And  again,  if  the 
babe  should  languish,  would  it  not  be  natural 
for  the  General  Assembly,  as  the  physician, 
to  prescribe  a  little  of  that  political  nutri- 
ment, by  which  it  waxed  strong  in  Geneva, 
Scotland  and  England  itself,  when  the  ma- 


98 


gistrates  were,  in  very  deed,  its  "  nursing 
fathers?"  I  will  pursue  this  topic  no  far- 
ther— except  to  say  that,  in  my  humble 
opinion,  the  magistrates  of  this  Republic  are 
well  employed,  if  they  study  the  laws  and 
administer  them  with  justice  and  impartiali- 
ty— and  that  it  is  an  insult  to  the  spirit  and 
language  of  the  Constitution,  to  invoke  them 
as  "  nursing  fathers"  to  what  the  General 
Assembly  may  think,  proper  to  call  the 
"  church  of  our  common  Lord." 

The  other  paragraphs  of  your  first  column 
contain  two  pretty  little  stories — one.  about 
"Dick  doing  nothing  and  Jack  helping  him," 
— the  other  about  the  two  "  strolling  priests 
in  Kentucky" — one  of  whom,  it  seems,  per- 
sonated the  Protestant  and  evidently  under- 
stood his  part,  since  he  "  fought  long,  died 
hard,  but  was  always  beaten"  This  was 
genuine  acting,  so  much  like  the  reality — for 

Halting  on  crutches  of  unequal  size, 
One  leg  by  truth  supported,  one  by  (flies), 
They  sidle  to  the  goal  with  awkward  pace 
Secure  of  nothing  but  to  lose  the  race. 

So  it  was  with  the  antagonist  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Maguire,  whom  you  have  introduced. 
Mr.  Pope,  the  king  of  Protestant  controversy 
in  Ireland,  had  the  courage  to  enter  the  lists 
with  him,  where  he  fought  long,  and  though 
I  will  not  say  he  was  beaten,  lest  I  should 
offend  you,  yet  it  is  certain  that  from  that 
day  to  this,  he  has  carefully  shunnod  every 
thing  like  controversy  with  a  Catholic  priest. 
He  did  not  possess  that  happy  talent  for 
which  Goldsmith  immortalized  the  village 
schoolmaster.  So  it  was  with  the  celebrated 
Claude,  whose  glory  it  was,  says  Eustace,  to 
have  fallen  by  the  hand  of  the  illustrious 
Bossuet.  So  it  was  with  the  Pope  of  Cal- 
vinism in  France,  Du  Plessis,  in  the  discul- 
sion  held  at  Fontainbleau  in  the  presence  of 
Henry  IV.  in  the  year  1600.  (see  Sully's  Me- 
moirs, Vol.  2.  page  354.)  This  case  is  so 
illustrative  of  the  manner  in  which  Protes- 
tant controversialists  assail  the  Catholic  reli- 
gion, that  I  will  give  a  brief  sketch  of  it. 

Du  Plessis  had  written  a  book,  not  to  prove 
his  own  religion,  but  to  refute  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  and  the  Mass.  The 
Catholics  were  startled,  as  usual,  with  the 
number  of  falsehoods  it  contained,  and  spoke 
so  freely  of  them,  that  the  author  in  his  rash- 
ness challenged  any  one  to  point  out  a  single 
false  quotation  in  the  whole  book.  M.  Du 
Perron  then  Bishop  of  Evreux,  and  after- 
wards Cardinal,  undertook  to  show  as  many 
as  five  hundred  and  fifty.  The  parties 
met  before  the  king.  Judges  were  appointed 
by  him,  some  of  whom  were  Catholics  and 


some  Calvinists.  Fifty  passages  were  to  be 
examined  every  day;  but  after  the  examina- 
tion of  nine  of  them,  in  which  he  was  unani- 
mously convicted,  Du  Plessis  became  sick  at 
the  stomach,  and  the  investigation  proceeded 
no  farther.  "  Every  one  knows,"  says  Sully, 
(a  Protestant,)  "how  the  dispute  was  termi- 
nated. Du  Plessis'  defence  was  weak  and 
ended  in  his  disgrace."  One  of  the  commis- 
sioners, Fresne-Canaye,  a  Calvinist,  and 
Sainte  Marie  Du  Mont,  another  eminent 
Protestant,  were  roused  from  the  "  delusion" 
of  Protestantism,  by  the  issue  of  this  contro- 
versy, and  soon  after  embraced  the  divine, 
but  calumniated  religion  of  the  Catholics. 

Having  disposed  of  your  anecdotes  in  re- 
ference to  the  Priests  in  Kentncky,  with  the 
citation  of  a  few  instances,  in  which  Protes- 
tant disputants  had  the  privilege  of  speaking 
for  themselves, — in  which  they  "  fought  long, 
died  hard,  and  were  always  (substantially) 
beaten,"  I  shall  now  proceed  to  follow  you 
through  the  heterogeneous  materials,  of  which 
your  letter  is  composed. 

,"  You  have  called  until  you  are  weary  for 
my  reply  to  the  admission  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Maguire."  But  pray  by  what  right  do  you 
call  on  me,  to  adopt  the  language  used  by  Mr. 
Maguire?  Supposing  I  were  to  call  on  you  to 
adopt  and  defend  the  language  of  some  Pres- 
byterian brother,  would  you,  on  that  ac- 
count, feel  yourself  bound  to  answer?  Not 
that  I  mean  to  decline  answering  your  call, 
but  to  intimate  that  I  am  able  to  meet  you 
in  my  own  words,  without  having  recourse 
to  those  even  of  Rev.  Mr.  Maguire.  The 
sum  of  the  quotation  is  this: — "You  (Mr. 
Hughes)  prove  the  authenticity  and  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  testimony 
of  the  church.  But  how  do  you  prove  the 
authority  of  the  church  ?  Mr.  Maguire  says, 
it  is  "  by  your  private  judgment  on  the 
Scripture  proofs"  And  therefore  you  (Mr. 
Hughes)  are  obliged  to  have  recourse  for  the 
proof  of  the  church  to  the  principle  of  pri- 
vate interpretation."  Is  not  this  what  you 
mean  ? 

Answer  1st.  Protestants  admit  the  testi- 
mony of  Scripture,  and  on  this  account,  I 
quote  it  to  prove  the  authority  of  the  church. 
2.  I  quote  it,  not  as  an  inspired  book,  if 
you  prefer  to  take  the  ground  of  a  Deist, 
but  I  quote  it,  in  that  case,  as  historical  evi- 
dence of  the  fact,  in  which  sense  you  will  be 
obliged,  even  as  a  Deist,  to  admit  its  testi- 
mony. 3.  The  history  of  Christianity  proves 
the  authority  of  the  church.  From  the  days 
of  the  Apostles,  the  church  proscribed  here- 
sies,— preached  the  doctrines  of  Christ  to  all 


99 


nations, — determined,  by  a  final  decision,  all 
controversies, — and  in  all  matters  of  religion 
exercised  supreme  authority.  So  that  the 
authority  of  the  church  is  proved  with,  or 
without,  the  Scripture.  It  seems  that  you 
cannot  comprehend  the  distinction  between 
a  fact  and  an  opinion.  When  I  quote  Scrip- 
ture to  show  that  Christ  appointed  a  minis- 
try in  his  church,  or  that  lie  was  crucified, 
I  merely  furnish  historical  evidence  bearing 
on  a  fact,  with  which  private  interpretation 
has  nothing  to  do.  But  when  Protestants 
quote  Scripture  to  support  their  private 
opinions,  which  they  call  their  doctrines,  then 
it  is  that  they  use  it,  not  to  establish  facts, 
but  to  support  speculations,  and  thus  degrade 
the  written  word  of  God,  by  making  it  a 
book  of  contradictions,  as  various  as  their 
minds,  or  their  sectarian  prejudices.  This 
is  manifest,  from  the  multitude  of  your  sects, 
and  your  endless  disputations  among  your- 
selves, about  the  meaning  of  the  Bible. 

But  I  should  have  proved,  you  say,  my 
own  rule  of  faith.  I  answer  that  I  have 
done  so,  and  as  long  as  you  are  pleased  to 
shun  a  struggle  with  the  reasoning  and  facts 
of  my  letters,  I  need  not  repeat  what  has 
already  been  said.  You  complain  of  my 
monotonous  reference  to  them ;  but  you 
should  remember,  that  although  you  have 
catered  industriously  for  the  prejudices  of 
Protestant  readers,  by  indulging  in  the  an- 
tiquated calumnies  of  your  predecessors 
against  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  Bishops 
of  Rome,  you  have  not  had  the  courage  to 
close  with  me  in  a  single  argument.  Even 
in  your  last  epistle,  although  our  discussion 
professes  to  be  on  the  rule  of  faith,  you  tell 
us  with  great  self-complacency,  that  "you 
had  supposed  at  least  that  /  xvould  defend 
the  Sacraments  of  our  churcli" — and  with 
the  happiest  versatility  of  talent,  you  wind 
up  by  expressing  a  desire  to  pass  to  "other 
topics," — as  if  you  had  not  confused  your 
letters  on  the  "  rule  of  faith,"  by  the  intro- 
duction, pell-mell,  of  every  topic  that  has 
been  discussed  since  the  days  of  Martin 
Luther. 

In  my  last  I  took  occasion  to  protest 
against  the  injustice  of  those,  who  represent 
me  as  arguing  against  the  Bible:  and  in- 
stead of  admitting  my  protest,  you  return  to 
the  charge,  and  employ  nearly  the  whole  of 
your  second  column,  to  show  that  my  argu- 
ments and  those  of  Unitarians  coincide  in 
our  estimate  of  the  Bible!  Whether  or  not 
you  have  done  justice  to  their  doctrines,  it  is 
not  for  me  to  determine.  My  reference  to 
them  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  canvassing 


their  doctrines,  but  merely  to  show  that  they 
and  you  are  children  of  the  same  parentage — 
your  rule  of  faith  is  the  same — not  the  Bible, 
but  your  own  respective  opinions  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  sacred  book:  to  show  far- 
ther, that,  under  the  guidance  of  this  fallacious 
principle  of  private  opinion,  they  have  the 
same  right  to  hold  their  doctrines,  that  you 
have  for  yours.  I  have  multiplied  arguments 
to  show  that  Protestant  Christianity,  whether 
it  be  Presbyterian  or  Unitarian,  rests  not  on 
the  Bible,  but  on  opinion,  as  its  basis,  and 
that  every  article  in  the  superstructure  of  be- 
lief, shares  the  uncertainty  of  the  foundation. 
What  is  heresy  among  Protestants  ?  Opi- 
nion. What  is  orthodoxy  among  Protes- 
tants ?  Opinion.  Every  thing  is  opinion; 
and  yet  it  is  certain  that  opinion  formed  no 
part  of  the  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
that  there  is  not  a  single  opinion  in  the  whole 
Bible!!  Now  if  this  be  so,  is  not  the  Pro- 
testant rule  of  faith  a  mere  prelude  to  in- 
fidelity? Does  it  not  destroy  the  certainty 
of  Revelation,  and  the  sacred  character  of 
the  divine  volume,  which,  with  insidious  em- 
brace, it  affects  to  cherish?  But  if  it  is  not  so, 
why  do  you  not  deny  it,  and  show  your  Pro- 
testant readers,  how  they  may  have,  by  your 
rule,  a  better  foundation  for  their  religious 
belief,  than  they  have  for  their  politics:  viz. 
opinion.  To  illustrate  the  truth  of  these  ob- 
servations, I  will  insert  a  u[ew  facts"  taken 
from  an  article,  in  the  Vermont  Chronicle, 
the  production,  evidently,  of  a  Protestant 
pen.  1.  "Out  of  about  one  hundred  and 
eighty  Unitarian  Societies  in  England,  about 
one  hundred  and  seventy  are  orthodox 
Presbyterian  Societies  revolutionized.  2.  In 
Ireland  a  large  number  of  Presbyterian  min- 
isters and  churches  have  become  Arian.  3. 
A  large  proportion  of  the  Unitarian  Societies 
in  Scotland  were  once  Presbyterians.  4. 
The  Presbyterian  churches  in  Geneva  and  in 
Switzerland  generally,  have  gone  over  in  a 
body  to  Unitarianism,  or  to  something  equal- 
ly hostile  to  vital  piety."  One  thing  more  I 
have  to  say,  that  you  will  do  well  never  to 
engage  in  a  controversy  with  an  educated 
Unitarian,  unless  it  be  for  the  improvement 
of  your  logic.  Not  that  I  would  side  with 
him  against  you  on  doctrine,  but  because  it 
is  the  inevitable  misfortune  of  all  those,  who 
adopt  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  to  have  no 
better  foundation  for  true  doctrines,  even 
Christ's  Divinity,  than  their  brethren  have 
for  the  contrary  opinion. 

Now  for  your  remarks  on  the  canon  of 
Scripture,  in  which  you  are  as  unfortunate  as 
before.     You  say,  "  it  was  shown  that  the 


100 


Jews,  the  Lord  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  the 
early  fathers,  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  and 
the  ancient  church  at  large,  rejected  these 
books" — (meaning  what-  Protestants  call 
Apocryphal  books.)  Now  I  reply  boldly, 
that  you  cannot  furnish  proof  of  what  you 
have  asserted.  That  there  is  not  a  single 
evidence  on  record,  that  they  were  "  reject- 
ed" either  by  our  Saviour,  or  his  apostles; 
and  if  you  assert  thus  inconsiderately  what 
is  untrue,  can  you  blame  me  for  reminding 
you  of  it?  With  regard  to  the  "fathers," 
"councils"  and  "church  at  large,"  when 
you  appeal  to  them  to  determine  what  books 
are  canonical,  and  what  books  are  not,  you 
act  as  a  rational  man;  and  I  take  your  in- 
vocation of  their  testimony  on  the  matter,  as 
a  tribute  paid  to  the  Catholic  principle  of 
belief.  If,  therefore,  their  authority  moves 
you  in  your  selection  of  scriptural  books, 
then  I  hail  you  as  the  child  of  tradition,  no 
less  than  myself.  But  then,  what  becomes 
of  your  rule  of  faith?  The  Scripture  alone 
does  not  determine  the  canonical  books. 
Our  Lord  and  the  apostles  are  silent  on  the 
subject,  notwithstanding  your  assertion  to 
the  contrary.  And  lo!  you  are  constrained 
to  invoke  the  aid  of  "fathers"  and  "coun- 
cils" to  tell  you  what  is  Scripture  and  what 
is  not.  But  what  say  you  of  the  later  "  fa- 
thers?"— of  Father  Luther,  for  instance,  for 
having  rejected  the  epistles  of  St.  James, 
and  St.  Jude,  and  that  of  St.  Paul  to  the 
Hebrews?  What  say  you  of  Father  Calvin, 
for  having  expunged  the  Apocalypse  from  the 
canon?  Were  these  apocryphal  ?  If  not, 
why  did  these  "  fathers"  reject  them?  And 
the  two  Gospels  and  Acts,  written  by  St.  Luke 
and  St.  Mark — were  they  apocryphal?  Their 
authors  were  not  apostles,  and  you  have  told 
us,  that  none  but  the  apostles  were  inspired. 
I  had  pressed  this  difficutly  before,  and  in- 
stead of  meeting  it,  you  accuse  me  of  a  dis- 
position "  rather  to  injure  the  cause  than 
spare  the  Protestant."  You  certainly  injure 
my  intentions  in  this  charge,  whilst  you  in- 
directly invoke  my  forbearance.  Still,  you 
try  to  extricate  yourself.  "Mark's  wri- 
tings received,"  you  say  "the  sanction  of 
Peter,  and  Luke's  of  Paul."  So  did  those  of 
Barnabas  and  Clement.  But  what  then? 
Again,  the  Apostle  Paul  says  in  his  epistles, 
"  Timotheus  our  brother."  But  what  then? 
and  "Sosthenes  our  Brother."  What  then?  I 
really  cannot  imagine  what  you  mean  by  all 
this.  But  to  come  to  the  point — were  St. 
Mark  and  St.  Luke  inspired  to  write  or  were 
they  not?  If  they  were,  then  you  were 
wrong  in  saying,   that  none  but  the  apostles 


were  inspired:  and  for  the  sake  of  the  Gospel 
of  Christ,  you  should  not  leave  your  testimony 
to  that  effect  on  record. 

In  reference  to  what  you  call  apocryphal 
scriptures,  which,  you  say,  have  been  added 
by  our  church,  I  have  to  reply  again,  that 
your  accusation  is  a  manifest  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  necessity  of  ecclesiastical  infalli- 
bility. You  pretend  that  the  Bible  alone  is 
your  rule  of  faith — and  yet  it  is  by  tradition 
that  you  attempt  to  show  "  what  is  Bible  and 
what  is  riot.™  Catholics  possess  that  canon 
of  Scripture,  which  has  been  recognised  by 
the  Christian  church  since  the  beginning. 
Some  of  the  early  fathers  hesitated  about  the 
canonicity  of  certain  books,  but  during  the 
same  period,  the  same  doubts  were  entertain- 
ed respecting  several  books  in  the  Protestant 
canon;  and  the  fact  would  go  to  exclude  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Apocalypse,  and 
several  other  books  ot  the  New  Testament. 
Calvin  on  this  account  rejected  the  revela- 
tions of  St.  John.  Why  then  will  you  not 
be  consistent  and  reject  all,  or  receive  all? 
The  Syriac  version,  so  much  praised  by  Pro- 
testant critics,  and  which,  they  say,  dates 
from  about  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  contains 
our  canon.  The  council  of  Carthage  in  397, 
composed  of  J 27  Bishops,  gives  our  canon, 
expressly  naming  every  book,  and  adds, 
that  these  had  been  received  from  the  fathers 
as  divine  and  canonical — "A  Patribus  ista 
accepimus  in  ecclesia  legenda."  Innocent 
I.  in  his  letter  to  Exsuperius  in  405,  makes 
the  same  enumeration.  So  does  the  Roman 
Council  under  Gelasius  I.  in  494.  Melito, 
to  whose  catalogue  you  refer,  was  only  an 
individual.*  He  mentioned  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  were  then  recognised 
every  where,  but  did  not  say  that  the  others 
were  vncanonical.  And  he  omits  the  book 
ot  Esther,  which  I  find  in  your  Confession 
of  Faith  of  1821.     The  synopsis,  attributed 


*  When,  therefore,  I  went  to  the  East,  and 
came  as  far  as  the  place,  where  these  things 
were  proclaimed  and  done,  I  accurately  ascertain- 
ed the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  send 
them  to  thee  here  below.  The  names  are  as  fol- 
lows.      Of  Moses    five  books,    Genesis,  Exodus, 

Leviticus,    Numbers,   Deuteronomy. Jesus   Nave, 

Judges,  Ruth.  Four  of  Kings.  Two  of  Paralipo- 
mena  {Chronicles,')  Psalms  of  David,  Proverbs  of 
Solomon,  which  is  also  called  Wisdom,  Ecclesias- 
tes,  Song  of  Songs,  Job.  Of  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jere- 
miah. Of  the  twelve  prophets  one  book — Daniel, 
Ezekiel,  Esdras.  From  these,  I  have,  therefore, 
made  the  selection,  which  I  have  divided  into  six 
books.  (Melito  according  to  Cruse's  Euseb.  p. 
164. 


101 


to  Athanasius,  is  considered  by  critics,  as 
the  production  of  the  6th  century.  The 
Council  of  Laodicea  in  375  was  composed  of 
only  22  Bishops,  and  if  you  had  taken  the 
pains  to  be  informed  on  the  subject,  you 
would  not  have  exposed  yourself,  by  saying  on 
its  testimony,  that  "your  present  Protestant 
canon  coincides  with  that  of  Christian  anti- 
quity." First,  22  Bishops  did  not  represent 
"Christian  Antiquity:"  and  secondly,  they 
made  no  mention  of  the  Apocalypse.  So  that 
the  "  coincidence"isdestroyed,  except  in  your 
own  imagination.  One  of  the  most  ancient  ca- 
talogues, cited  by  Beveridge  gives  the  Catho- 
lic canon.  Eusebius(lib.  3.  c.  3.  x.  25)  says, 
that  some  rejected  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, and  regarded  as  doubtful  that  of  St. 
James,  St.  Jude,  the  2d  and  3d  of  St.  John, 
and  the  Revelation.  Are  these  therefore 
Apocryphal?  Is  not  one  part  of  the  inference 
as  well  deduced  as  the  other?  As  to  the  books 
o'f  the  Old  Testament,  the  Catholic  canon 
corresponds  with  the  Greek  version,  which 
was  used  in  the  synagogue  of  Alexandria,  and 
by  the  Jews  in  Asia  Minor,  Africa,  and  gene- 
rally wherever  the  Greek  language  prevailed. 
Some  of  them  were  written,  after  the  canon 
of  Esdras  had  been  formed — and  this,  I  trust, 
will  account  for  their  not  being  there  enume- 
rated. Origen,  in  his  letter  to  Julius  Afri- 
canus,  speaks  of  them,  as  having  been  in  use 
from  the  commencement  of  the  church.  And 
St.  Augustine,  writing  against  the  semi-Pe- 
lagians, who  denied  the  canoniciry  of  some 
of  these  books,  as  you  do,  appeals  to  the  au- 
thority of  preceding  ages  in  their  support, — 
"tarn  longa  annositate" — and  if  their  antiqui- 
ty was  an  argument  in  the  4th  century  against 
the  semi-Pelagians,  I  do  not  see  why  it  should 
not  be  as  good,  against  Protestants  in  the\9th 
century.  Our  canon  is  that  held  by  the 
Christians  of  Syria  to  this  day,  whether  Ma- 
ronites  or  Catholics,  Jacobites  or  Eutychians. 
It  is  used  by  the  Cophts  nf  Egypt,  by  the 
Ethiopians,  and  the  Nestoriaus,  separated  as 
than  they  have  been  from  the  church,  for  more 
1200  years,  (see  Perpet.  de  la  Foi.  t.  5.  I.  7. 
also  Biblioth.  Orient,  t.  3  and  4.)  The  Greek 
schismatics,  in  their  Synod  held  in  Jerusalem 
in  1672,  under  the  Patriarch  Dositheus,  give 
the  Catholic  canon,  and  add,  "  these  books 
we  hold  to  be  canonical,  and  confess  them  to 
be  sacred  Scripture,  since  they  have  been 
handed  down  to  us  as  such  by  ancient  usage, 
or  rather  by  the  Catholic  church."  Shall  we 
then  turn  aside  from  this  mass  of  authority 
and  hearken  to  the  ipse  dixit  of  Martin  Lu- 
ther, John  Calvin,  or  the  Rev.  John  Breck- 
inridge, about  Apocryphal  books?  Did  not  the 


two  former  gentlemen  expel  books  even  from 
the  Protestant  canon,  in  the  most  arbitrary 
and  capricious  manner?  Read  over,  I  pray 
you,  these  testimonies,  and  reflect  how  im- 
prudent you  were,  in  a  former  letter,  when 
you  asserted  that  our  canon  of  scripture  was 
framed  only  "  in  the  sixteenth  century  by 
the  Council  of  Trent."  And  hereafter,  if 
you  should  feel  disposed  tochallenge  "  Priests 
and  Bishops  to  the  field  of  controversy,"  re- 
memember  that  there  are  other  books  to  be 
consulted,  besides  "  Taylor's  Dissuasive  from 
Popery." 

In  the  Jewish  dispensation  controversies 
were  decided  by  the  judgment  of  the  High 
Priest  and  Sanhedrim — in  reference  to  which 
you  make  me  say,  that  "of course  by  the 
same  principle  the  Pope  and  Councils  are 
the  judges  of  controversies  under  the  new 
law."  You  will  observe,  Rev.  Sir,  that  I  did 
not  institute  any  such  direct  comparison.  I 
spoke  of  the  principle  being  the  same  Hnder 
both  dispensations.  I  must  again  refer  the 
reader  to  the  proofs  contained  in  letter  No. 
5,  to  show  that  it  is  not  by  any  feeble  analogy, 
but  by  the  positive  institution  of  Jesus 
Chkist,  that  the  ministry  of  his  church  are 
clothed  with  power  to  preach  the  Gospel,  ad- 
minister his  sacraments,  and  proscribe  the 
heresies  of  innovaters  in  religion.  They 
have  exercised  this  prerogative  from  the  be- 
ginning of  Christianity.  And  it  would  have 
been  iniquitous  so  to  have  excercised  it,  if 
the  Son  of  God  had  appointed  the  Bible  alone 
according  to  private  interpretation,  as  the  in- 
fallibe  rule  of  faith. 

But  the  reference  to  the  condemnation  of 
Christ,  in  which  the  High  Priest  erred,  is  no 
argument  on  the  subject.  Jesus  Christ  the 
Sunol  Righteousness,  had  already  manifested 
himself  to  the  world,  by  his  miracles  and  doc- 
trines, and  thus  superseded  the  authority  of 
the  Synagogue.  Previous  to  this  manifesta- 
tion by  miracles,  the  decision  of  the  Jewish 
Council,  as  to  the  birth-place  of  Christ,  was 
true.  And  even  in  the  conspiracy  against 
his  life,  when  Caiaplias  declared  it  expedient 
that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  the 
evangelist  adds,  that  "  this  he  spoke  not  of 
himself;  but  being  Me  High  Priest  of  that  year, 
he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  the 
nation."  John  xi.  15.  You  ask  me  then  was 
the  tribunal,  appointed  by  Almighty  God  in 
the  old  law,  "fallible  or  infallible?"  An- 
swer, it  was  infallible,  until  it  was  supersed- 
ed by  Him,  to  whom  "  was  given  all  power  in 
heaven  and  earth."  "Did  they  decide  right  or 
wrong?"  Answer,  they  decided  wrong— be- 
cause Christ  had  already  proved  to  them,  that 


102 


He  was  the  Messiah,  and  they  shut  their  eyes 
against  the  evidence  of  truth.  The  term  of 
their  commission  had  virtually  expired.  It 
was  known  to  themselves  that  their  authority 
would  be  superseded  by  the  coming  of  the 
Holy  One — and  consequently  their  defection 
after  His  coming  is  no  argument  against  their 
infallibility  before — much  less  is  it  an  argu- 
ment against  the  infallibility  of  the  church, 
secured  in  the  commission  given  by  Christ 
to  her  pastors,  when  he  said:  "  Go,  teach 
all  nations.... and  lo  I  am  with  you  all  days, 
even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world.'' 

"The  Scripture,"  you  say,   "according 
to  the  ancient  fathers,  is  the  sole  judge  of 
controversies    and     interpreter    of    itself." 
Here  again  you   appeal   to  the  fathers,  and 
give  up  the  Bible  alone.     That  the  ancient 
fathers  spoke  in  the  most  eloquent  language 
of  the  Scriptures,   is  certain.     That  all  Ca 
tholic  theologians  so  speak  of  them,  is  equal- 
ly certain.     That  they  quoted   them  against 
heretics,  who  afectcd  to  admit  no  other  testi- 
mony, is  indubitable.     But  to  say  that  they 
regarded  the   Scripture  alone,  as  the  rule  of 
faith  or  the  judge  of  controversies,  is  an  un- 
founded assertion.     I  defy  you  to  show  one 
single  instance  of  it  in  all  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, in  which  heresy  was  condemned  by  the 
testimony   of  Scripture  alone.     The  Church 
was  in  possession  of  the   true  doctrines   of 
Christ — and  heresy  began,  in  every  age,  by 
some  individual  pretending  to  have  disco- 
vered in  the  Bible,  tenets,   with   which  the 
church   had    never   been   acquainted.     This 
was  novelty;  and   until  a  new  revelation  be 
made,  novelty  of  doctrine  and  error  are,  and 
will  be,   the   same  thing.     Is    not  this  the 
principle   even    of    Presbyterianism    itself? 
When  you   argue  against  Catholics  you  ac- 
cuse them  of  denying  the  sufficiency  of  the 
Scriptures  alone,  as   a  rule    faith;    whereas 
they  contend  that  God  never  appointed  them 
as  an  exclusive  rule.     But  when  you   argue 
against    your  brethren    of    the  low    church 
party,  you  drop  the  boasted  sufficiency  of  the 
Scriptures  as  a  proof  rule,  unless  your  stand- 
ards be  superadded//     Your    standards  as 
"amended"   by  the   General    Assembly  of 
1821,  have  attained  the  venerable  antiqui- 
ty of  twelve  years  :  and  yet  you  talk  of  "new 
lights.'/"     Heresy  has  always  appealed  to  the 
Bible  alone,  for  the  purpose  of  secession  from 
truth ;  but  so  soon  as  it  had  seceded,  it  ne- 
ver failed  to  give  up  the  sufficiency  of  the 
Bible,  and  to  fence  itself  around  with  arbi- 
trary Creeds,  Articles  of  belief  and  Confes- 
sions of  Faith. 

You  ask  me,  why  I  did  not  cite  the  pas- 


sage from  Tertullian  at  first,  as  I  did  at  last. 
Answer:  I  did  not  wish  to  make  the  quota- 
tion too  long.  But  you  are  at  liberty  to  cite 
the  whole  chapter,  or  the  whole  book,  and 
you  will  find  that  every  sentence,  taken  one 
with  another,  will  be  a  dagger  of  testimony 
against  the  principle  of  Protestantism,  on 
the  rule  of  faith.  You  pretend  to  have  won 
a  great  concession,  when  you  say,  that  "even 
on  my  own  admission,  Tertullian  makes 
many  Apostolical  churches,  and  Apostolical 
chairs."  Answer,  There  were  many  church- 
es, but  only  one  doctrine.  And  you  as- 
sert what  is  utterly  unfounded  in  fact,  when 
you  say,  on  Tertullian's  authority,  that  the 
"writings  of  the  Apostles"  constituted  the 
infallible  rule  of  faith.  In  this  you  are  as 
unjust  towards  your  author,  as  you  had 
been  in  other  instances;  and  yet  you  allude 
to  this  case  as  an  offset  to  your  affair  of  Bel- 
larmine,  in  which  you  say,  "I  charge  you 
with  injustice  to  the  passage."     My  charge 


was    much   stronger  than  Ihis.     I   charged 
upon  you,  that  in  six  distinct  instances  you 
had  quoted  authorities,  and  that  in  reference 
to  each  of  these  six  authorities,  your  asser- 
tions were  untrue.     I  challenged  you  to  meet 
me  before  a  sworn  interpreter,  or  even  Dr. 
Wylie,   and   you   shrink  from   this  alterna- 
tive.   I  now  challenge  you  for  the  third  time: 
and  I  trust  that,  without  clogging  the  pro- 
posal   with    irrelevant   conditions,  you  will 
either  meet  me,  or  give  up  your  pretensions. 
Certainly  you  will  understand  this  language. 
With    regard    to    "the   warning    against 
reading  this  controversy,"  I  insist  upon  an 
explanation.     In    the  first  instance,   it  was 
Bishop  Kenrick,  who  gave  the  warning.     He 
denied — you  apologized — and  he  was  satis- 
fied.    But  still,  the  "  most  respectable  and 
responsible  gentleman   insisted   that  such  a 
warning  was  given  in   one  of  our  churches 
and  on  the  day  named."     And   in  your  last 
letter  you,  soften  it  down  into   a   mere  ques- 
tion "left  open   for    correction!"     But  how 
could  that  be,  since  the  gentleman  still  "  in- 
sisted," even  after  the  correction  was  given  ? 
The  information  was  false:  and  now  I  re- 
quire of  you,  in  the  name  of  the  clergymen, 
who  officiate  in  the  other  churches,  to  give 
the  name  of  your  informant.     Shall  you  give 
circulation   to  false   testimony,  persist   in 
maintaining  it,  and  yet  plead  "the  delicate 
nature  of  your  situation"  for  concealing  the 
name   of  its  author?     Even   public   morals 
will  not  tolerate  such  trilling.     We  require 
then  that  the  charge  be  proved,  or  retracted, 
or  else  the  name  of  the  author  given. 

And  now  with  reference  to  Dr.  Miller,  I 


103 


have  not  a  word  to  say  against  the  encomi- 
ums you  have  passed  upon  him.     I  know  him 
only  by  his  writings,  of  which  I  may  be  permit- 
ted to  speak,  since  they  are  public  property. 
He  seems  to  be  one  of  those  happy  mortals, 
who,  if  I  may  judge  from  his  last  letter,  are 
perfectly  acquainted  with  the  Catholic  reli- 
gion, without  ever  having  taken  the  trouble 
to  study  it.     On  that  subject  he  can  instruct 
others,  without  having  learned  himself.     He 
has  put  forth  in  his   last  letter  to   Presbyte- 
rians, for  Catholic  doctrines,  assertions,  for 
which  he  cannot  find  authority  in  any  Catho- 
lic approved  writer  in  the  whole  universe.     If 
he  can,  I  pledge  myself  to  give  $500  to  the 
Bible  Society,  provided  he,  or  any  other  Pres- 
byterian will  give  me  the  same  sum  for  the 
Orphans,  in  case  he  cannot.     The  Doctor's 
other  writings   have  been   made   sufficiently 
free  with,    by  Protestant   adversaries;    and 
though  I  have  never  seen  a  criticism  on  his 
style,   yet  I  have   been  often  compelled  to 
laugh  at  the  expense  of  his  logic.     You  have 
no  doubt  seen  the  treatise  of  Dr.  Cook  of 
Kentucky,  in   which  the  author  has  the  ad- 
vantage of  being  able   to  use   Catholic  ar- 
guments,  in   support   of   Episcopacy. — For, 
our  friend  of  Princeton  has  wielded  his  pen 
against  his  Episcopal  brethren,  no  less  than 
against   Catholics.     And    as   his   testimony 
will  no  doubt  be  dear  to  you,  I  will  give 
you  a  specimen  of  his  language,  touching  the 
Bible  alone.     His  first  position  was  against 
Episcopalians.     "  The  sufficiency,"  says  he, 
"and  the  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures  alone, 
as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  was  assumed 
as  the  grand  principle  of  the  Reformation  from 
Popery,  and  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Protestant  cause."  (Dr.  Miller, 
Vol.  1,  p.  26  )    A  Presbyterian  clergyman  in 
Baltimore,  Rev.  Mr.  Duncan,  happening  to 
understand  the  Doctor  literally,  concluded, 
that  of  course,  the  Confession  of  Faith  was 
superfluous,  since  the  Bible  alone  was  suffi- 
cient; and  proceeded  accordingly  to  dispense 
with  the  standards  of  the  church.     Whereup- 
on the  wisdom  of  the  Catholic  principle,  in 
reference  to  the  rule  of  faith,  broke  in  upon 


the  Doctor,  and  he  wrote  as  follows: — "How 
is  she  (the  church)  to  ascertain  the  character 
of  her  candidates  for  the  holy  ministry,  when 
according  to  the  brother,  whom  I  am  con- 
strained to  oppose,  she  is  forbidden  to  employ 
any  other  test  than  that,  (the  Bible,)  which 
the  most  corrupt  and  unqualified  will 
bear  just  as  well  as  the  most  excellent:  and 
which  i3  of  course,  in  reference  to  the  point 
to  be  decided,  no  test  at  all."  (Letter  to  a 
Gentleman  in  Baltimore,  pa^e  24.) 

Now,  pray,  what  more  have  I  said  touch- 
ing the  Bible,  as  a  test  of  doctrine,  than  that 
it  is  a  test,  which  the  "most  corrupt"  as  well 
as  the  "most  excellent  will  bear;"  and  that, 
in  the  Professor's  own  language,  "in  refer- 
ence to  the  point  to  be  decided,  it  is  no  test 
at  all."  And  if  it  is  "  no  test  at  all,"  then 
it  is  not  "  sufficient"  as  the  only  rule  of  faith 
and  practice.  Here  then  is  the  testimony, 
even  of  Dr,  Miller  coming  to  support  my 
argument,  which  is  strong  enough  without  it. 
As  you  seem  to  be  anxious  to  quit  the  rule 
of  faith,  which,  by  the  way,  you  had  quit  from 
the  beginning,  I  need  not  remind  you,  that 
according  to  our  agreement  the  next  question 
will  be—"  Is  the  Protestant  religion  the  reli- 
gion of  Christ  ?"  Now  I  hope  that  you  will 
not  undertake  to  prove  the  Protestant,  by 
assailing  the  Catholic  religion.  I  do  not  say 
that  I  will  follow  you  immediately:  but  in 
the  mean  time,  be  pleased  to  let  me  know 
what  I  am  to  understand  by  the  "Protestant 
religion?"  Give  me  your  own  definition  and 
I  will  respect  it.  Above  all,  let  us  have  the 
six  passages,  on  which  we  are  at  issue  de- 
cided by  Dr.  Wylie,or  any  other  interpreter 
of  languages.  I  shall  be  ready  on  the  6th 
of  May,  next  Monday,  if  it  meet  your  con- 
venience. Please  also  to  favour  us  with  the 
name  of  the  gentleman  who  abused  your 
confidence,  by  asserting  and  "  insisting" 
that  the  people  were  warned  by  one  of  the 
Catholic  Priests  in  this  city,  against  reading 
this  controversy. 


Yours,  &c. 


Jno.  Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   14. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  May  2d,  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

Sir, — At  an  early  day  in  the  present  con- 
troversy, "with  all  the  pomp  and  circum- 
stance of  war,"  you  announced  to  the  Ame- 
rican public    your   confident    determination 

«'  TO  DRIVE  THE  PLOUGHSHARE  OF  REASON, 
EVIDENCE,  AND  ARGUMENT,  THROUGH  THE 
RADICAL    DELUSION    OF     PROTESTANTISM."       It 

now  becomes  that  candid  public,  rather  than 
myself,  to  judge  whether  you  have  redeemed 
a  pledge  so  self-confident  and  presuming. 
The  smile  which  was  provoked  by  the  peru- 
sal of  these  lofty  pretensions,  was  probably 
succeeded  in  many  a  Protestant's  breast,  as 
well  as  mine,  by  the  recollection  of  Ahab's 
admonition  to  Benhadad,  "  Let  not  him  that 
girdeth  on  his  harness  boast  himself  as  he 
that  putteth  it  off."  Sounding  epithets,  your 
readers  find,  are  not  synonymous  with  solid 
arguments,-  and  the  skill  of  the  Jesuits,  and 
the  mad  zeal  of  the  Crusaders,  with  all  the 
enginery  of  Rome,  must  ever  prove  them- 
selves impotent  against  "the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus." 

Nothing  can  more  strongly  evince  the 
weakness  of  your  cause,  and  your  own  con- 
sciousness of  it,  than  your  repeated  efforts  to 
divert  me  from  the  course  of  the  discussion, 
by  the  introduction  of  various  and  irrelative 
details.  As  to  the  Rev.  Dv.  Miller,  whom 
you  so  feebly  assail,  and  so  indelicately  in- 
troduce, it  is  superfluous  for  me  to  say  to  you, 
or  to  the  country,  that  he  stands  in  no  need 
of  defence  from  me.  Your  notice  of  his  tri- 
umphant exposure  of  the  devices  and  errors 
of  your  church  (in  a  late  letter  addressed  to 
Presbyterians)  is  good  proof  of  the  efficacy 
of  that  appeal.  As  it  regards  your  prof- 
fered bet  of  $500,  you  may  not  be  aware 
that  Protestants  are  not  accustomed  to 
gamble:  and  if,  as  I  suspect,  he  should  not 
close  in  with  the  wager  you  have  laid,  you 
must  attribute  his  declining  it  to  our  prin- 
ciples, and  not  to  our  fear  of  defeat.  I  am 
pleased  to  find  Dr.  Miller,  in  one  of  his 
works  published  more  than  twenty  years 
ago,  distinctly  avowing  that  "  the  Bible  is 
the  only  infallible  and  the  sufficient  rule  of 


faith  and  practice :"  and  you  will  excuse  me 
for  expressing  my  utter  amazement,  that  any 
one  who  claims  a  character  for  either  candour 
or  common  sense,  should  see  any  contradic- 
tion between  this  proposition  and  another, 
which  maintains  that  the  church  is  bound  to 
be  careful,  that  those  whom  she  receives  in- 
terpret this  rule  as  she  thinks  right,  before  she 
agrees  to  walk  with  them  in  ecclesiastical 
communion.  Does  it  imply  any  contradic- 
tion to  the  principle  that  the  rule  is  infalli- 
ble and  sufficient,  that  a  body  of  Christians 
refuse  to  receive  any  but  those  whom  they 
consider  as  interpreting  this  rule  in  a  scrip- 
tural and  correct  manner?  And,  besides, 
does  not  every  Confession  of  Faith  profess 
to  found  itself  solely  on  the  Scriptures;  to  re- 
ceive nothing  but  what  the  Scriptures  teachj 
and  to  receive  it  simply  and  solely,  because 
it  is  found  there  ?  It  is,  therefore,  a  defini- 
tive evidence  of  what  a  church  does  be- 
lieve, not  an  authoritative  rule  by  which  to 
believe;  and  of  what  the  Bible  does  say,  not 
what  it  should  say. 

In  reference  to  the  extract  from  the  Ver- 
mont Chronicle,  true  or  false,  we  freely  al- 
low that  Presbyterian  churches  may  become 
Unitarian,  and"that  at  different  times  certain 
congregations  have  become  so.  But  if  there 
be  weight  in  the  fact,  where  does  its  pres- 
sure lie?  Thousands  of  congregations,  mil- 
lions of  individuals,  yea,  nations,  in  chief 
part,  and  they  the  most  enlightened,  free 
and  virtuous,  of  the  ages  in  which  they  lived, 
once  Roman  Catholics,  and  who  under  that 
denomination  never  read  the  Bible,  have  at 
different  times  become  evangelical  Protestants 
and  from  that  hour  have  been  diligent,  de- 
vout, and  affectionate  students  of  the  Bible. 
Does  this  prove  that  their  former  profession 
and  creed  were  erroneous?  It  must  be  so, 
according  to  your  argument. 

And  now  a  final  word  in  regard  to  your 
slander  of  our  Confession  of  Faith.  And  it 
is  simply  this,  that  your  misstatements,  so 
pertinaciously  repeated,  though  greatly  to 
your  own  detriment,  are  its  best  defence. 
I.  Your  vain  struggle  to  extricate  yourself 
from  the  difficulties  of  your  argument  on  the 


106 


Jewish  Sanhedrim  as  an  infallible  judge  of 
controversy,  moves  one's  compassion.  Hav- 
ing been  driven  to  the  alternative  (on  your 
own  principles)  of  justifying  the  crucifixion 
of  our  blessed  Lord,  or  of  rejecting  the  doc- 
trine of  Infallibility,  you  say  "  even  in  the  con- 
spiracy against  his  life,  when  Caiaphas  declar- 
ed it  expedient  that  one  man  should  die  for 
the  people,  the  Evangelist  adds,  that  "this 
he  spoke  not  of  himself;  but  being  the  High 
Priest  of  that  year,  he  prophesied  that  Jesus 
should  die  for  the  nation,"  John  xi.  15.  Then 
you  plainly  mean  to  say  that  as  Caiaphas  de- 
livered a  true  prophecy  as  High  Priest,  he 
was  infallible  in  doctrine.  Now  in  the  same 
council,  by  the  advice  of  the  same  High 
Priest,  it  was  determined  that  Christ  should 
die;  and  we  are  told  that  (John  xi.  53)  iifrom 
that  day  forth  they  took  council  together,  to 
put  Him,  (Christ)  to  deaths  Either  then, 
(by  your  argument,)  the  High  Priest  was 
infallible  in  the  prophecy,  and  fallible  in  the 
decree,  that  is  fallible  and  infallible  at  the 
same  time;  or  else  Christ  was  righteously 
condemned. 

You  proceed  thus,  "You  ask  me  then  was 
the  tribunal,  appointed  by  Almighty  God  in 
the  old  law  fallible  or  infallible?  Answer; 
It  was  infallible,  until  it  was  superseded  by 
Him,  to  whom,  'was  given  all  power  in 
heaven  and  earth.'  Did  they  decide  wrong? 
Answer;  They  decided  wrong,  because  Christ 
had  already  proved  to  them,  that  he  was  the 
Messiah,  and  they  shut  their  eyes  against  the 
evidence  of  truth.  The  term  of  their  commis- 
sion had  virtually  expired."  Here  then,  you 
admit  "  that  this  tribunal  was  infallible  until 
it  was  superseded."  When  was  it  supersed- 
ed? Was  it  superseded  before  the  death  of 
Christ?  Was  it  not  after  this  decree,  that 
Christ  died,  and  in  the  act  of  breathing  out 
his  soul  unto  death,  said  "it  is  finished?" 
Was  it  not  after  this  that  he  arose  from  the 
dead,  instituted  Christian  Baptism,  and  com- 
missioned the  Apostles  "  to  go  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture?" Then,  was  this  tribunal  superseded 
at  the  time  of  that  decree?  On  what  a  pre- 
cipice's brow  do  you  stand,  rather  than  give 
up  your  fatal  system  ! 

Probably,  afraid  of  this  dreadful  dilemma, 
you  attempt  to  explain  by  adding — "the  term 
of  their  commission  had  virtually  expired!" 
But  what  do  you  mean  by  virtually  expired? 
Either  it  had,  or  had  not,  expired.  If  it  had 
actually  expired,  why  do  you  say  virtually — 
only?  If  it  had  not  actually  expired,  it  was 
still  existing,  and  hence  by  your  reasoning 
infallible;     and     therefore     we     are    again 


brought  to  the  horrible  conclusion,  that  Christ 
was  righteously  put  to  death. 

You  admit  that  "  a  tribunal"  (for  example 
the  Church  of  Rome  or  its  Pope  and  Coun- 
cil) "  may  be  superseded  when  it  is  proved  to 
them,  that  they  shut  their  eyes  against  the 
evidence  of  the  truth;"  consequently  your 
church  may  be  superseded,  and  of  course  lose 
its  infallibility.  How  striking  in  this  connex- 
ion does  the  Apostle  Paul's  warning  to  the 
Roman  Church  appear,  especially  as  he  by 
divine  inspiration  was  comparing  the  Jewish 
with  the  Roman  Church.  "  And  if  some  of 
the  branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou,  being  a 
wild-olive  tree,  wert  graffed  in  among  them, 
and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fat- 
ness of  the  olive  tree;  boast  not  against 
the  branches.  But  if  thou  boast,  thou  bear- 
est  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee.  Thou 
wilt  say  then,  the  branches  were  broken  off, 
that  1  might  be  graffed  in.  Well  ;  because 
of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou 
standest  by  faith.  Be  not  high  minded  but 
fear:  for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural 
branches,  take  heed  lest  he  also  spare  not 
thee."  Rom.  II.  Chapter. 

This  passage  proves  without  a  question  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  may  be  cast  off,  like  the 
Jewish  Church.  And  here  we  see  the  pre- 
sumption of  your  church,  in  first  calling  her- 
self supreme  and  universal,  and  then  con- 
tending that  if  she  fails,  the  universal  Church 
fails!  The  universal,  the  true  Church  of  Christ 
cannot  fail;  and  the  only  way  to  prove  that  it 
can,  is  to  prove  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
means  the  only  true  and  universal  Church. 

II.  You  have  not  even  attempted  to  answer 
the  body  of  my  arguments  on  the  "  Apocry- 
phal Books."  For  example,  why  did  the 
Jews  reject  them?  especially  as  they  had 
(you  say)  "an  infallible  tribunal  until  super- 
seded by  the  coming  of  Christ!"  Why  did 
our  Lord  and  his  apostles  sanction  their  re- 
jection of  them?  Why,  for  several  centuries 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  are  ancient  writers, 
and  the  earliest  catalogues  silent  about  them? 
Why  do  some  of  these  catalogues  explicitly 
exclude  them  from  the  canon  !  It  is  a  fact 
that  the  oldest  Syriac  version  does  not  con- 
tain these  books.  I  assert  also  the  following 
propositions  concerning  these  books,  and 
shall  prove  them,  if  you  dispute  them. 

1st.  They  possess  no  authority  whatever, 
either  external  or  internal,  to  procure  them 
admission  into  the  canon  of  Scripture. 

2d.  They  contain  many  things  which  are 
fabulous,  contradictory,  and  directly  at  vari- 
ance with  the  canonical  Scriptures. 


107 


3d.  They  contain  passages,  -which  are  in 
themselves,  false,  absurd,  and  incredible. 

4th.  They  do  not  even  claim  to  be  inspir- 
ed. And  yet  they  are  made  by  your'*  in- 
fallible church,"  a  part  of  the  Holy  Word  o« 
God ! 

III.  You  seem  to  be  utterly  unwilling  to 
meet  the  question  which  was  put  to  you  in  the 
words  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  M'Guire.    He  allowed 

"  THAT  THE  CATHOLIC  HAS  TO  EXERCISE  HIS 
PRIVATE  JUDGMENT  UPON  THE  SCRIPTURE 
PROOFS  OF   THE  AUTHORITY  OF   THE  CHURCH." 

Dr.  Milner  says  in  his  "  End  of  Contro- 
versy," chapter  13,  "Hence  it  is  as  clear 
as  noon-day  light,  that  by  solving  this  one 
question,  which  is  the  true  church?  you  will 
at  once  solve  every  question  of  religious  con- 
troversy that  ever  has,  or  that  ever  can  be 
agitated."  "  It  is  agreed  upon  then  that  all 
we  have  to  do,  by  way  of  discovering  the 
true  church,  is  to  find  out  which  of  the  rival 
churches,  or  communions,  is  peculiarly  One, 
Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic."  "Yes,  my 
dear  sir,  these  marks  of  the  true  church  are 
so  plain  in  themselves,  and  so  evidently 
point  it  out,  that  fools  cannot  err,  as  the 
Prophet  foretold,  Isa.  xxxv.  8,  in  their  road  to 
it.  They  are  the  flaming  beacons,  which  for- 
ever shine  on  the  mountain  at  the  lop  of  the 
mountains  of  the  Lord's  house,  Isai.  22." 
Bellannine  also  thus  writes  : 


"  Dicimus  ergo,  notas 
Ecclesiae,  quas  adfere- 
mus,  non  fa  cere  eviden- 
tiam  veritatis  simpliciter, 
quia  alioqui  non  esset  ar- 
ticulus  fidei,  hanc  cccle- 
siam  esse  veram  eeclesi- 
am;nequeulliinvenirentur 
qui  id  negarent,  sicut  ne- 
mo invenitur,  qui  neget 
sententias,  quas  Mathe- 
matici  demonstrant,  sed 
tamen  efficiuntcvidentiam 
credibilitatis,  juxta  illud 
Psalm.  92.  "  Testimonia 
tua  credibilia  facta  sunt 
nimis."  Apud  eos  autem, 
qui  admittunt  Scripturas 
divinas,  et  historias,  ac 
Patrum  veterum  scripta, 
faciunt  etiam  evidentiam 
veritatis.  Tametsi  eniin 
articulorum  fidei  Veritas 
non  potest  nobis  esse  evi- 
dens  absolute,  tamen  po- 
test esse  evidens  ex  hypo- 
thesi,  id  est,  supposi- 
ta  veritate  Scripturarum  ; 
quod  enim  a  scriptura  evi- 
denter  deducitur,  est  evi- 
denter  verum,  suppositis 
Scripturis. 


We  say,  therefore,  that 
the  marks  of  the  church 
which  we  shall  adduce  do 
not  plainly  (or  of  them- 
selves) constitute  the  evi- 
dence of  truth,  because 
otherwise  it  would  not  be 
an  article  of  faith  t/iatsuch 
a  church  is  the  true  church, 
nor  could  any  persons  be 
found  who  would  deny 
that  article,  just  as  no  per- 
son can  be  lound  who  will 
deny  the  points  which 
the  mathematicians  de- 
monstrate. Yet  they  (the 
marks  of  the  church)  con- 
stitute  the  evidence  of  cre- 
dibility according  to  the 
92d  Psalm.  »  Thy  testimo- 
nies  are  very  credible." 
But  among  those  who  ad- 
mit the  divine  Scriptures 
and  histories,  and  the  wri- 
tings of  the  ancient  Fa- 
thers, they  constitute  the 
evidence  of  truth.  For  al- 
though the  truth  of  the  arti- 
cles of  faith  is  not  absolute- 
ly evident,  yet  it  is  evident 
by  hypothesis,  that  is,  the 
truth  of  the  Scriptures 
being  admitted;  for  what- 


ever is  evidently  deduced 
from  the  Scriptures,  is  evi- 
dently true,  the  Scriptures 
being  admitted.  Chap.  3. 
Book  4.  concerning  the 
marks  of  the  church. 

Such  are  the  admissions  of  your  standard 
writers.  Then  it  is  acknowledged,  that  the 
marks  of  the  true  church  are  not  self-evident, 
but  that  the  proofs  of  them  must  be  deduced 
from  the  sacred  Scriptures.  It  is  also  acknow- 
ledged that  there  is  one  subject  on  which 
private  judgment  must  be  exercised,  viz. 
In  finding  out  from  the  word  of  God,  the 
marks  of  the  true  church.  All  the  passages 
of  the  word  of  God,  then,  that  go  to  show 
which  is  the  true  church,  are  to  be  judged  of 
by  private  judgment.  There  are  fifteen 
marks  of  a  true  church  mentioned  by  Bellar- 
mine,  viz.  1  "  The  name  Catholic.  2.  Jln- 
tiquity.  3.  Duration.  4.  Jimplilude  of  Be- 
lievers. 5.  The  succession  of  Bishops.  6. 
Agreement  in  doctrine  with  the  primitive 
church.  7.  Union  of  the  members  among 
themselves  and  with  the  Head.  8.  Sanctity 
of  doctrine.  9.  Efficacy  of  the  doctrine.  10. 
Holiness  of  life.  JL\.  The  glory  of  miracles. 
12.  The  light  of  Prophecy.  13.  Confession 
of  adversaries.  14.  1  he  unhappy  end  of  the 
churches  enemies.  15.  Temporal  felicity." 
These  marks  must  be  found  out,  before  you 
know  whether  the  Greek,  or  Episcopal,  or 
Roman,  or  Presbyterian,  or  any  other  church, 
be  the  true  church.  But  a  very  large  amount 
of  Scripture  is  to  be  interpreted  in  order  to 
find  the  true  church.  For  example,  to  make 
out  the  6th  mark,  a  man  must  know  what  the 
doctrines  of  the  Primitive  church  were,  (in  a 
word  must  know  the  whole  word  of  God) 
before  he  can  compare  its  doctrines  with 
those  of  the  churches  now  existing. 

So  too  in  finding  the  8th  mark,  "sanctity 
of  doctrine."  Bellannine  tells  us,  "The 
church  is  said  to  be  holy,  because  its  profes- 
sion contains  nothing  false  as  to  doctrine  of 
faith,  nothing  unjust  as  to  doctrine  of  mor- 
als." It  is  true  Dr.  Milner  says  (as  quo- 
ted above)  "  these  marks  of  the  church  are 
so  plain  in  thejnselves,  and  so  evidently 
pointed  out,  that  fools  cannot  err  in  their 
roud  to  it."  But  when  you  come  to  ex- 
amine the  proofs  which  are  brought  from 
the  Scripture,  they  will  be  found  as  a  whole 
to  be  less  clear  than  the  body  of  Scripture  is, 
and  far  less  so  than  those  portions  of  the 
word  of  God  on  which  fundamental  doctrines 
and  practical  duties  rest. 

[f  private  interpretation  is  ruinous  in  the 
use  of  all  other  Scripture,  why  is  it  not  ruin- 


108 


ous  here  ?  If  private  interpretation  is  suffi- 
cient to  explore  the  whole  word  of  God,  in 
order  to  find  out  the  true  Church,  why  is  it 
not  sufficient  for  the  rest?  And  if  truth 
stands  out  as  clear  as  the  mountain  tops,  so 
that  the  fool  cannot  err,  in  whatever  relates 
to  the  church,  how  does  it  become  suddenly 
and  impenetrably  dark  in  all  things  relating 
to  Jesus  and  salvation,  to  sin,  and  holiness, 
to  all  doctrine,  and  all  duty?  If  private  in- 
terpretation may,  with  moral  certainty,  and 
indisputable  credibility,  lay  the  foundation 
of  your  whole  system,  why  may  it  not  avail 
for  the  whole  volume  of  truth,  and  the  whole 
catalogue  of  doctrine  ?  Here  then,  by  the 
admission  of  your  own  writers,  private  inter- 
pretation is  the  only  guide  in  a  search  after 
salvation,  and  all  the  articles  of  faith;  for 
you  say,  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  the  true 
Church,  and  the  true  Church  alone  teaches 
infallibly  the  articles  of  faith;  and  private  in- 
terpretation must  find  out  the  true  Church! 
Is  not  this,  then,  a  ruinous  chasm;  a  palpa- 
ple  contradiction;  a  most  disingenuous  and 
deceitful  argument? 

It  may  simplify  and  enforce  the  above  re- 
marks to  give  the  following  dialogue  between 
a  Romanist  and  a  Protestant,  extracted  from 
an  able  work  on  the  subject  of  infallibility: 

Papist.  I  pity  your  condition,  Sir,  to  see 
you  live  at  such  uncertainties  for  your  reli- 
gion, and  obstinately  refuse  to  consult  that 
living  oracle  and  infallible  judge,  whom 
God  hath  placed  in  his  church,  to  decide 
all  controversies  in  faith  and  worship. 

Protestant.  Sir,  I  thank  you  for  your 
charity;  and  though  I  do  not  find  myself  so 
uncertain  as  I  perceive  you  think  I  am,  yet 
I  should  be  glad  of^guch  an  infallible  guide 
as  you  tal*of,  if  I  knew  where  to  find  him. 

Papist".-  H&  is  to  be  found  in  the  church 
of  Rome;  for  that  is  the  church  which  is  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth;  there  is  St. 
Peter's  chair,  whom  Christ  made  the  su- 
preme governor  of  his  church,  whom  he  com- 
manded to  feed  his  lambs  and  his  sheep; 
that  rock  on  whom  Christ  promised  to  build 
His  church,  and  that  the  gates  of  Hell 
should  not  prevail  against  it;  and,  therefore, 
in  communion  with  this  church  and  in  obe- 
dience to  the  supreme  pastor  of  it,  you  can- 
not err. 

Protestant.  But  pray  how  shall  I  be  sure 
of  this? 

Papist.  Do  you  ask  that  now,  when  I 
have  referred  you  to  such  plain  texts  of 
Scripture  for  the  proof  of  it? 

Protestant.  Will  you  allow  me  then,  to 
interpret   these  texts  according  to  my  own 


private  judgment?  And  why  then  may  I 
not  use  my  judgment  in  other  matters? 
for  I  think  all  the  articles  of  my  creed  are 
as  plain  in  Scripture,  as  that  the  Pope  or 
church  of  Rome  is  the  supreme  infallible 
judge;  and  indeed,  if  I  must  stand  to  my 
own  judgment  in  this  matter,  I  can  find 
no  such  thing  in  these  texts  as  you  have  al- 
leged. 

Papist.  Your  own  judgment!  No,  by 
no  means;  this  causes  all  the  heresies  in  the 
world,  that  men  will  presume  to  judge  for 
themselves. 

Protestant.  What  course  must  I  take 
then? 

Papist.  You  must  stand  to  the  judgment 
of  the  church,  which  cannot  err;  and  what- 
ever heretics  say,  she  will  tell  you,  that 
these  texts  prove  the  church's  infallibility. 

Protestant.  Hold,  Sir,  what  is  it  we  are  to 
prove? 

Papist.     That  the  church  is  infallible. 

Protestant.  And  this  I  must  prove  from 
Scripture? 

Papist.     Yes. 

Protestant.  And  must  not  rely  on  my 
own  judgment  for  the  sense  of  Scripture, 
but  on  the  interpretation  of  the  church? 

Papist.  Right,  this  is  the  true  Catholic 
way. 

Protestant.  That  is,  I  must  take  the 
church's  word  that  she  is  infallible? 

Papist.  No,  you  must  believe  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  says  so. 

Protestant.  But  I  must  believe  the  Scrip- 
ture, not  because  I  understand  this  to  be  the 
sense  of  it,  but  because  the  church  so  ex- 
pounds it? 

Papist.  Right,  for  heretics  expound  it 
otherwise. 

Protestant.  And  what  is  it  then  but  to 
take  the  churches  word  for  her  own  infalli- 
bility; to  believe  it  because  she  says  it  herself, 
or  to  believe  it  because  she  makes  the  Scrip- 
ture say  it?  Jind  so  then  you  can  never  be 
infallibly  certain  of  your  church's  infalli- 
bility;— and  of  course  you  can  never  be  infaU 
libly  certain  that  its  teaching  is  true.  Then 
as  to  any  doctrine,  say  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
Protestants  believe  it,  because  the  inspired 
word  of  God  in  its  plain  and  obvious  sense 
clearly  teaches  it.  Papists  believe  it  be- 
cause the  church  says  so — and  they  believe 
the  church  to  be  infallible  because  they  think 
the  plain  and  obvious  sense  of  Scripture 
teaches  it.  In  a  word  the  faith  of  the  Pro- 
testant is  resolved  into  the  infallibility  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles; — whereas  the  faith 
of  Papists  is  resolved  into  the  infallibility  of 


109 


Popes  and  councils.  "Whether  it  be  right 
in  the  sight  of  God  to  hearken  unto  you 
more  than  unto  God,  judge  thou!''  Peter, 
Acts  iv.  19. 

IV.  7/  is  agreed  between  us,  that  one  great 
end  of  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  established 
by  Christ,  was  to  determine  disputes  in  his 
Church.  (See  rule  2d.)  One  of  the  artifices 
of  jour  reasoning  upon  the  rule  of  faith,  is 
to  insist  that  no  rule  is  infallible  which  does 
not  finally  settle  all  disputes,  and  since  the 
Bible  fails  to  settle  all  disputes  it  cannot  be, 
(you  say)  an  infallible  rule  of  faith.  Now 
all  that  you  can  say  of  your  boasted  rule  of 
faith  (unless  you  resort  to  fraud  or  force)  is 
that  it  settles  disputes  among  all  who  will 
submit  to  it.  The  same  in  the  strictest  sense 
is  true  also  of  the  Bible.  But  if  men 
will  not  submit  to  the  Bible,  then  disputes 
cannot  be  determined  by  the  Bible.  If  men 
will  resist  its  authority,  and  pervert  its  true 
meaning,- then  we  say  there  is  no  remedy  on 
earth.  You  on  the  contrary  insist  that  there 
is.  We  say  if  the  Bible  is  not  sufficient,  no- 
thing is,  and  they  who  go  beyond  it  and  re- 
sort to  other  means,  are  guilty  of  fraud, 
usurpation,  and  rebellion  against  God.  In  a 
word, — I  shall  prove  that  the  method  of  de- 
termining disputes  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
is  anti-scriptural,  and  anti- Christian,  and, 
therefore  not  that  infallible  rule  established  by 
Christ. 

1st.  In  order  to  secure  a  pretended  and 
apparent  union,  you  draw  a  distinction  be- 
tween doctrines  and  opinions.  All  those 
points  upon  which  the  Church  is  divided, 
however  important,  are  called  opinions;  and 
those  are  called  doctrines,  upon  which  you 
are  agreed.  Of  course,  you  are  always 
agreed  upon  doctrines  or  points  of  faith. 
Thus,  for  example,  it  is  a  cardinal  doctrine 
with  you,  that  your  church  is  infallible. 
But  where  this  infallibility  is  located,  is  a 
matter  of  opinio?!,  or  in  other  words,  it  is  a 
thing  about  which  you  are  not  agreed.  The 
least  observation  will  convince  any  one,  that 
infallibility  is  useless,  unless  you  can  locate 
it.  Suppose,  for  example,  I  wish  to  bring  a 
suit  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  When  I  ask,  "who  compose  this 
court,"  anil  "where  this  court  holds  its  ses- 
sions," I  seek  for  information  which  it  is  in- 
dispensable for  me  to  possess,  in  order  to  se- 
cure a  decision.  Now  what  if  it  should  be 
replied,  "  there  is  a  Supreme  Court  appoint- 
ed by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  with 
the  approval  of  the  Senate,  which  is  supreme 
judge  in  certain  controversies;  but  who 
compose  this  court,  and  where  it  holds  its 


sessions,  is  a  matter  of  opinion."  "  It  is  not 
agreed  who  they  are,  or  where  they  meet; 
but  this  court,  and  this  alone,  takes  cogni- 
zance of  such  cases!"  Is  it  not  equally 
absurd  to  say  that  there  is  a  living  infallible 
judge  of  controversies  in  the  Church  of 
Rome;  but  who  he  is,  or  where  he  has  his  seat, 
we  are  not  agreed;  it  is  a  matter  of  opinion; 
we  cannot  tell?  It  seems  to  be  the  opinion 
of  Mr.  Hughes,  that  the  Pope  and  the  coun- 
cil united  are  infallible;  a  host  of  writers 
are  of  opinion  that  infallibility  is  seated  in 
the  Pope;  and  another  host  commit  it  to  the 
church  universal.  But  it  is  not  a  doctrine  in 
any  case;  it  is  only  a  matter  of  opinion. 
Again  the  church  of  Rome  has  for  ages  been 
divided  upon  the  question,  "  whether  the 
Virgin  Mary  was  conceived  in  the  womb  of 
her  mother,  with  the  same  purity  that  is  ak  ' 
tributed  to  Christ's  conception  in  her  womb.  < 
Multitudes  contend  for  both  sides  of  the 
question.  If  it  be  true  that  she  was  thus  con- 
ceived that  is,  immaculately,  then  the  Bible 
account  on  the  whole  subject  of  sin  is  utter- 
ly false.  It  is  therefore  a  question  of  im- 
mense importance.  Yet  even  the  Council  of 
Trent  were  divided  on  this  question,  and  the 
heated  disputants  were  finally  left  unsatis- 
fied, and  the  question  unsettled;  and  finding 
it  could  not  be  made  a  doctrine  without  a 
schism,  they  finally  agreed  to  decline  any 
interference  with  the  point  in  dispute,  and 
leave  it  undecided  and  free.  Now  bv  such  a 
procedure  your  church  holds  out  a  "show  of 
union,  when  in  fact  evangelical  Protestants 
do  really  agree  more  in  doctrines  that  are 
essential  to  salvation,  than  the  members  of 
the  church  of  Rome.  As  to  agreement  in 
"  doctrines  that  are  damnable,"  we  confess 
we  covet  it  not;  and  in  this  respect,  yield 
to  you  the  unenviable  distinction  of  such  a 
concert. 

Here  let  me  add,  that  this  is  a  very  curious 
process  for  an  infallible  church.  Why  leave 
some  points  untouched?  Why  ignorant;  or  if 
informed  about  them,  why  silent,  on  some 
points,  and  infallibly  certain  and  fiercely 
zealous  about  others?  Does  the  Holy  Ghost 
enlighten  only  the  "  hemisphere"  of  truth  to 
the  eye  of  Rome?  Do  "light  and  darkness 
thus  dwell  together"  in  the  Roman  Councils? 
Why,  for  example,  are  you  so  infallibly  cer- 
tain that  infants  cannot  be  saved  without  the 
baptism  of  a  Priest,  and  that  his  baptism  is 
null  ivithout  his  intention  in  administering 
it,  and  yet  not  be  able  to  say  whether  all  the 
race  were  conceived  in  sin?  Why  hold  one 
part  as  opinions  and  another  part  as  doctrines? 
Have  you  not  said  (see  letter  3d  tenth  head) 


/ 


110 


tl  that  Christ  nevtr  inculcated  the  belief  of  an 
opinion?"  Why  then  as  all  are  doctrines,  do 
you  not  teach  all?  If  you  are  ignorant  of  some, 
then  how  are  you  infallible?  If  you  withhold 
your  decisions  for  fear  of  schisms,  is  not  your 
union  a  fiction  or  a  fraud? 

2d.  But  when  this  passive  way  of  settling 
disputes  fails,  you  have  a  more  vigorous  meth- 
od, at  which  we  have  before  hinted.  It  is 
worthy  of  a  more  distinct  and  ample  exhibi- 
tion. And  here  I  refer  to  your  own  Bellar- 
mine,  who  (as  you  informed  me)  is  av  stand- 
ard writer  with  you,  who  was  the  nephew  of 
a  Pope  (Marcellus  the  2d;)  was  a  cardinal  in 
the  church;  and,  above  all,  whose  works  re- 
ceived the  sanction  of  the  Pope.  I  extract 
parts  of  the  21  and  22d  chapters  of  his  3d 
book   on  the  laity. 


'Posse  hatreticos  ab  ec- 
clesia  damnatos  tempora- 
libus  poenis  et  etiam  morte 
mulctari. 

Nos  igitur  breviter  os- 
tendemus  hsereticos  incor- 
rigibiles  ac  praesertim  re- 
lapsos,  posse  ac  debere  ab 
ecclesia  rejici,  et  a  secu- 
laribus  potestatibus  tem- 
poralibus  poenis  atque  ipsa 
etiam  morte  mulctari. 

Primo  probatur  scrip- 
turis.  Probatur  secundo 
sententiis  et  legibus  impe- 
ratorum,  quas  ecclesia  sem- 
per probuvit.  Probatur  ter- 
tio  legibus  ecclesia:.  Pro- 
batur quarto  testimoniis 
Patrum.  Probatur  ulti- 
mo ratione  naturali.     Pri- 


Ciiapter  21st. 
That  heretics  condemn- 
ed by  the  church  may 
be  punished  with  tem- 
poral penalties,  and  even 
with  death.  We  will 
briefly  show  that  the 
church  has  the  power, 
and  it  is  her  duty,  to  cast 
off  incorrigible  heretics, 
especially  those  who  have 
relapsed,  and  that  the  se- 
cular power  ought  to  in- 
flict on  such  temporal 
punishments,  and  even 
death  itself.  1st.  This 
may  be  proved  from  the 
ScriptarSs.'  2d.  It  is 
pr6ved  from  the  opinions 
and  laws  of  the  Emperors, 
jiohich   the  church  has  al. 


mo   hseretici  excommuni-  i  ways  approved/   3d.  It  ts 
cari  jure  possunt,  ut  om-     pr#wd"&y"Jt?ie  laws  of  th& 


nes  fatentur,  ergo  et  occi- 
di.  Probatur  consequen- 
tia  quia  excommunicatio 
est  major  poena,  quam 
mors  temporalis.  Secundo 
experientia  docet  non  esse 
aliud  remedium,  nam  ec- 
clesia paulatim  progressa 
est  ct  omnia  remcdia  ex- 
perta;  primo  solum  ex- 
communicabat  dcinde  ad- 
didit  mulctam  pecuniari- 
am;  turn  exilium,  ultimo  co- 
acta  est  ad  mortem  venire  : 
mittere  illos  in  locum  su- 
um.  Tertio,  falsarii  om- 
nium judicio  merentur 
mortem ;  at  hajretici  fal- 
sarii sunt  verbi  Dei. 
Quarto,  gravius  est  non 
servare  fidem  hominem 
Deo,  quam  feminam  viro ; 


church.  4th.  It  is  proved 
by  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers.  Lastly.  It  is 
proved  from  natural  rea- 
son. For  first :  It  is 
owned  by  all,  that  here- 
tics, may  of  right  be  ex- 
communicated— of  course 
they  may  be  put  to  death. 
This  consequence  is  pro- 
ved because  excommuni- 
cation is  a  greater  pun- 
ishment than  temporal 
death.  Secondly.  Expe- 
rience proves  that  there 
is  no  other  remedy ;  for 
the  church  has  step  by 
step  tried  all  remedies — 
first  excommunication 
alone;  then  pecuniary  pe- 
nalties ;  afterward  banish- 
ment ;  und  lastly  has  been 


dendos  esse ;  prima  causa 
est  ne  mali  bonis  noceant ; 
secunda  est,  ut  paucorum 
supplicio  multi  corrigan- 
tur.  Multi  enim  quos  im- 
punitas  faciebat  torpentes 
supplicia  proposita  exci- 
tant ;  et  nos  quotidie  idem 
videmus  fieri  in  locis  ubi 
viget  Inquisitio.  Denique 
harelicis  obstinatis  benefi- 
cium  est  quod  de  hac  vita 
tollantur ;  nam  quo  diu- 
tius  vivunt  eo  plures  er- 
rores  excogitant,  plures 
pervertunt,  et  majorem  si- 
bi  damnationem  acquir- 
unt. 


sed  hoc  morte  punitur,  cur  forced  to  put  them  to  death; 

non   illud :     Quinto,    tres  to    send    them    to     their 

causae  sunt   propter  quas  own  place.     Thirdly,   All 

ratio  docet  homines  occi-  allow  that  forgery  deserves 


Caput  22d. 

Solvuntur  objectiones. 
Superest  argumenta  Lu- 
theri  atque  aliorum  hcereti- 
corum  diluere.  Argument, 
primum,  ab  experientia  to- 
tius  ecclesia?  :  Ecclesia  in- 
quit  Lutlierus  ab  initio  sui 
usque  hue  nullum  combus- 
'sit  hareticum.  ergo  non  vi- 
detur  esse  voluntas  Spiri- 
tus  ut  comburantur. 

Respondeo,  argumen- 
turn  hoc  optime  probat, 
non  sententiam,  sed  impe- 
ritiam,  vel  impudentiam 
Lutheri :  nam  cum  infiniti 
propemodum,  vel  combus- 
ti,  vel  aliter  necati  fuerint, 
aut  id  ignoravit  Lutherus, 
et  tunc  imperitus  est,  aut 
non  ignoravit,  et  imp'u- 
dens,  ac  mendax  esse  con- 
vincitur :  nam  quod  hse- 
retici sint  saepe  ab  eccle- 
sia combusti,  ostendi  po- 
test, si  adducamus  pauca 
exempla  de  multis. 

Argumcntum  secun- 
dum ;  experientia  testatur 
non  profici  terroribus. 
Respondeo,  experientia  est 
in  contrarium ;  nam  Do- 
natistae,  Manichaei,  et  Al- 
bigenses  armis  profligati, 
et  extincti  sunt.     / 


death;  but  heretics  are 
guilty  of  forgery  of  the 
word  of  God.  Fourthly, 
A  breach  of  faith  by  man 
toward  God,  is  a  greater 
sin,  than  of  a  wife  with 
her  husband.  But  a  wo- 
man's unfaithfulness  is 
punished  with  death  ;  why 
not  a  heretic?  Fifthly, 
There  are  three  grounds 
on  which  reason  shows 
that  heretics  should  be 
put  to  death :  the  1st  is 
lest  the  wicked  should  in- 
jure the  righteous — 2d, 
that  by  the  punishment  of 
a  few,  many  may  be  re- 
formed.     For  many  who 

WERE  MADE  TORPID  BY  IM- 
PUNITY ARE  ROUSED  BY  THE 
FEAR  OF  PUNISHMENT;  AND 
THIS  WE  DAILY  SEE  IS  THE 
RESULT  WHERE  THE  IN- 
QUISITION flourishes.  Fi- 
nally, It  is  a  benefit  to 
obstinate  heretics  to  re- 
move them  from  this  life  ; 
for  the  longer  they  live  the 
more  errors  they  invent, 
the  more  persons  they  mis- 
lead :  and  the  greater 
damnation  do  they  trea- 
sure up  to  themselves. 

Chapter  22d. 

Objections  answered. 

It  remains  to  answer 
the  objections  of  Luther 
and  other  heretics.  Ar- 
gument 1st.  From  the  his- 
tory of  the  church  at  large. 
The  church,  says  Luther, 
from  the  beginning,  even 
to  this  time,  has  never 
burned  a  heretic.  There- 
fore it  does  not  seem  to 
be  the  mind  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  that  they  should  be 
burned  !  I  reply,  this  ar- 
gument admirably  proves 
not  the  sentiment,  but  the 
ignorance,  or  impudence 
of  Luther ;  for  as  almost 

AN  INFINITE  NUMBER  WERE 
EITHER  BURNED!  OR  OTHER- 
WISE   PUT    TO    DEATH,    Lu- 

ther  either  did  not  know 
it,  and  was  therefore  igno- 
rant ;  or  if  he  knew  it, 
he  is  convicted  of  impu- 
dence and  falsehood  m  for. 
that  heretics  were  often 
burned  by  the  church  may 
be  proved  by  adducing  a 
few  from  many  examples. , 
Argument  2d.  Experi- 
ence shows  that  terror  is 
not  useful  (in  such  cases.) 
I  reply  experience  proves 

THE    CONTRARY — FOR      THE 


' 


Ill 


Argumentum  decimum  Donatists,     Maniuheans, 

tertium:     Dominus  attri-  and     Albigenses     wkreJ 

buit  ecclesia?  gladium  spi-  routed,  and  annihilated 

ritus,  quod  est  verbum  dei,  by  arms. 

non  autem  gladium  ferri ;  Argument   13th.    The 

immo  Petro  volenti  gladio  Lord     attributes    to     the 

ferreo    ipsum     defender*,  church  "the  sword  of  the 

ait :    Mitte  gladium  tuum  Spirit,  which  is  the  word 

in  vaginam.  Joan  18.    Res-  of    God;"     but    not    the 

pondeo,  ecclesia  sicut  ha-  material      sword ;       nay 

bet  Principes  Ecclesiasti-  He    said    to    Peter,    who 

cos,  et  scculares,  qui  sunt  wished  to  defend  him  with 

quasi    duo   ecclesia;    bra-  a  material  sword,  "m(  up 

chia,  ita  duos  habet  gla-  thy  sword   into   the  scab- 

dios,  spintualem,  et  mate-  bard."  John  18th.     I  an- 

nalem,    et    ideo,    quando  swer;   4s  the  church  has 

man  us  dextera  gladio  spi-  ecclesiastical  and  secular 

rituah  non  potuit  hsereti-  princes,  who  are   her  two 

cum    convertere,    invocat  arms;      so    she    has   two 

auxihum   brachii   sinistri,  swords,  the  spiritual  and 

ut  gladio  ferreo  hoercticos  material;     and     therefore 

coerceat.                     -^  wnen    her  right  hand   is 

Argumentum  decimum  unable  to  convert  a  heretic 

octavum  :    Numquam  Ap-  with  the  sword  of  the  Spi- 

ostoh    brachium    seculare  rit,  she  invokes  the  aid  of 

contra   haereticos    invoca-  the  left  hand,  and   coerces 

verunt.    Respondet  S.  Au-  heretics  with  the  material 

gustinus  in    epist.   50.  et  sword. 

alibi,  Apostolos  id  non  fe-  Argument  18th.     The 

cisse,    quia     nullus    tunc  Apostles     never    invoked 

erat  Chnstianus  Princeps,  the   secular    arm    against 

quern  invocarent.  At  post-  heretics.       Answer      (ac- 

quam    tempore    Constan-  cording  to  St.  Augustine, 

tini........Ecclesia  auxilium  in  letter  50  and  elsewhere) 

seculans  brachii  implora-  The  Apostles   did  it  not, 

■■  because  there  was  no  Chris' 


y  tian  Prince  whom  they 
could  call  on  for  aid.  But 
afterwards    in     Constan- 

tine's  time, the   church 

called   in  the   aid  of   the 
secular  arm. 

The  mere  translation  of  these  infamous 
passages  discloses  the  very  "  mystery  of  ini- 
quity" which  for  ages  has  been  working  in 
the  church  of  Rome.  Here  we  have  the  ex- 
traordinary fact,  that  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New,  the  laws  of  the  Church,  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Fathers,  the  history  of  the 
Church,  reason,  the  good  of  other  men,  and 
even  mercy  towards  the  unhappy  victims, 
are  all  adduced  in  one  cumulative  argument 
to  prove  that  the  church  of  Rome  has^the  au- 
thority, and  that  it  is  her  duty  to  put  to  death 
men  ivho  differ  incorrigibly  from  her  in  their 
doctrines!  You  will  hardly  say,  these  are 
opinions;  for  here,  we  find,  that  he  adduces, 
1st  ecclesiastical  law !  Nor  can  you  say 
that  the  church  did  not  burn  these  heretics 
but  that  the  evil  power  did  it,  for  we  see, 
M.  that  "the  civil  power  (as  stated  above,) 
is  one  of  the  arms  of  the  church,  and  its  sword, 
one  of  t/ie  swords  ofihe  ehunhf„  and  that 

the  church  has  always  approved"  the  edicts 

and  acts    of   emperors    in    this    way— and 

that  heretics   were  often    burned  'by    the 

": 


church P     Perhaps  you  have  read  the  life  of 
George  W.shart,  who  was  martyred  by  your 
Cardmal  Beaton,  of  bloody  memory.     In  it 
you  will  find  that  when  the  cardinal  failed  to 
secure  from  the  Regent  the  condemnation  of 
W  .shar    for  heresy,  without  a  fair  trial,  he 
returned  for  answer,  that^he  had  sufficient 
authority  to  condemn    heretics   without  the 
mterpos.t.on  of  the  civil  power;  and  accord- 
ingly   he    actually   tried,   condemned,   and 
burned  W.shart,  in   despite  of  the  distinct 
prohjb.t.on    of  the  Regent  of    the   country. 
3d.   rh.s    your  standard  author,  calls  Lu- 
ther a  tool   or  a  knave  for  denving  that  the 
church  had  burned  heretics.     He  says  »  al 
most  an  infinite  number  of  heretics  were  burn- 
ed  by  the  church,  and  instances  the  Donatists 
Manicheans,  and  Albigenses."     4th.  He  tells* 
us  that  the  only  reason  why  the  church  did  not 
burn  heret.es  before  Constantine,  was  that 
there  was  no  prince  who  would  do  it,— but 
as  soon  as  she  could  have  it  done  she  did  it 
Query      Why  is  it  not  done  in  the  United 
Mates ?     It   is   done   in  Spain!     I  beff  Mr 
Hughes  to   tell   us   why!     5th.  And  this  is 
the  unchangeable  church  !     Of  course,  she  is 
the    same    now    that    she    was    then,— and 
would    .f  she  could,  do  the  same  now   she 
ever  d.d.     She  does  not  lack  the  will,  but 
the  power;  and  wo  to  this  land  if  that  power 
be   ever    acquired!  6th.  This   passage    may 
be  compared  with   the  long  extract  which  I 
gave  in  letter  No.  8.  from  the  Great  Lateran 
Council  decreeing  the  destruction  of  heretics, 
winch  you  so    strangely  passed,  on  a  for- 
mer occasion. 

Illustration  from  History— Massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew. 
Mezerai's  History  of  France,  foh  vol. 
2.  p.  1098.  (Paris  1646.)  During  two 
months,  this  horrible  and  cruel  tempest 
overspread  France,  in  some  places  more,  and 
m  some  less,  and  destroyed  not  less  than 
25,000  persons.  Davila  page  275,  says, 
The  report  constantly  prevailed,  that  in  the 
course  of  a  few  days  not  fewer  than  40,000 
of  the  Huguenots  had  perished. 

The  holy  father  and  all  his  court  displayed 
a  great  rejoicing,  and  went  in  solemn  pro- 
cession to  the  church  of  St.  Louis,  to  lender 
thanks  to  God  for  so  happy  a  success. 

The  following  extracts  from  the  letter  of 
Pope  Pius  V.  book  3.  let.  45.  incontestably 
proves  that  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew 
owes  its  origin  to  the  vindictive  councils  of 
the  Popes.  "To  our  most  Dear  Son  in 
Christ,  Charles,  the  molt  Christian  King  of 
the  French.     The  public  joy  of  this  city  has 

*  V   7         i 


113 


very  much  augmented  our  pleasure,  which  at 
the  first   certain   intelligence   of  so  great  a 
victory,  rejoiced  and  does  rejoice.     The  frui 
of  this  victory  consists  in  tins,  that  by  a  just 
animadversion,    the    wicked    heretics,    the 
common  enemies  being  removed  out  of  the 
way,  its  former  peace  and  tranqui lhty  may 
be  restored  to  that  kingdom."      Thuanus  in 
his  History,  book  53,  tells  us,  that  on  the 
news  of  this  massacre  being  received  at  Koine 
it  was  instantly  resolved,  that  the  Pope  with 
the  Cardinals  should  straightway  go  to  the 
church  of  St.  Mark,  and  should  solemn  y  re- 
turn thanks  to  the  Lord  for  so  great  a  bless- 
ing conferred  upon  the  Roman   See  and  the 
_  »  .    .  ii    ii__i.  *i,«^^0  a  mi  (>p  should 


as?^«a%te£ft 


Bishop  in  his  own  diocese,  or  a  number  of 
Bishops  assembled  in  a  Provincial  Council, 
made  inquisition  of  those  errors  which  arose 
in  the   diocese  or   Province;   but  the  more 
weighty  matters  were  always  referred  to  the 
Apostolical  seat  (Rome;)  and  thus  every  Bisft- 
op  or  Provincial  council  took  care  to  bring  to 
its  proper  issue  whatever  was  decreed  by  the 
Apostolical    See.     But   in    process   of  time, 
when  greater  evils  pressed,  it  became  neces- 
sary for  the  Pope  to  send  legates  into  those 
regions  in  which  heresy  had  long  and  wide  y 
spread,  that  they  might  assist  the  Bishops  in 
restraining  the  audacity  of  abandoned  men, 
and  in  deterring  Christians  from  foreign  and 
But  when  new  errors 


Unristian  "«»«)  *•«**  -• ',  J.    .  1,1 

be  published  in  the  whole  Christian  world 
-Its  causes  were  declared  to  be,  that  they 
should  return  thanks  to  God  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  ^e  enemies  of  the  truth  and  of  the 
church  in  France,"  &c.  &c 

Finally,  Fleuri  in  his  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory,  vol.  123.  book  173.  p.   557.  tells   us. 


denraveu  uuiuuics.     -"--   . 

da  ly  sprung  up,  and  the  number  of  heretics 
wasgreatly  increased-seeingthat  the  legates 
could  not  always  be  at  hand,  nor  apply  the 
proper  remedy,  it  was  determined  to  insti- 
tute a  standing  tribunal,  that  should  al- 
ways be  present,  and  at  all  times,  and  m 
every  country,  should  devote  their  minds  to 
ci^/y  ^,   f.,,th.  and  to 


tory'voLV  book  173.  p.  557-  te lis  us  wry  ^  ^,  -- ~  -  &f  ^  ^^ 
Gregory  the  13th,  only  regarding  the  g>od    preser nng  .        ^  hcy 

which  he  thought  likely  to  result  from  this, ,  to  |  ^trainljf  J1  it  WJS;  that  the  Inquisitors 
toe  Catholic  religion  in  France,  ordered  ^   a.  ose.     Thus ^  ,  ^  ^  ^  q/ 

procession,  in  which  he  himself  joined,  from  "g^JJ*  ^fito  ^  ^  as  m  a  matter 
[he  church  of  St.  Peter's  totheehdrch  of  I St.  I  ™J^  ™  the  preservation  of  the  purity 
Louis,  to  return  thanks  to  God  for  so  happy    so  weighty  as  t ne  p  ^  ^ 

a  result;  and  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  fjfcfo^^^^^-^ 
this  event,  he  caused  several  medals  to  oe  union  ■  ■  j.  ,  g  as  the  centre  „f  unity, 
struck,  wherein  he  ^^ 
on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  oto ^,s  ,d*  a»  iZembl,  or  congregation  of  Cardinals  mwhch 


v, 


suuciv,  «»..~.~—  .(,..  ,,„  an    were  w    ««!«««;») '»  "u ;»„     ,   .  J    ,.  , 

on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  ™™*XfJ\\l™seM 

angel  carrying  a  cross  in  one  hand la  nd  a  |  asemu ./  *    g    ThisJ  congregation  is  the 

sword  in  the  other,  exterminating  the  heie-  ^Jopej  J      isilors,  over  the  whole  world; 
tics.  . ,  • L  th;c    ,n  a  jjL  «//  f  e/er  /A«r  more  difficult  matters; 


Allow  me  to  add  one  item  more  to  this 
delectable  catalogue.  Among  he  ex trac :s 
from  Bellarmine  given  above,  the, e  is  this 
distinct  approval  of  the  inquisition      'W 

BAILY    SEE  THE    SAME  RESULTS  (viZ. .the  good 

done  in  putting  an  end  to  heresy)  in  pla- 
ces   WHERE   THE    INQUISITION    »«*««■•■ 

You  are  not  a  stranger,  I  suppose,  to  Joannes 
Devotus.    His  Institutions  have  the  highest 
sanctions  of  your  Church  at  Rome  itself,  as 
containing  nothing  contrary  to  faith  or  good 
morals.     Of  course,  his  authority  will  not  be 
questioned;  and  as  his  writings  are  of  compa- 
ratively recent  date,  (1793)  they  give  us  glan- 
ces at  the  Roman  Church  in  our   own   times. 
I   omit  the  original,   because  so    much    has 
been  already   introduced.     But  it   is  open 
to  your  inspection,  if  you  have  it  not  in  your 
possession,  vol.  4th,  tit.  8th,  page  MI—UP. 
under  the  head  "  Inquisitors  of  Heretical  pr a- 
vily?  he   gives    the   following   statements 
< «  The  cause  of  instituting  the  Tribunal  called 
the   Inquisition   was    iV.s.     At  first   every 


head  of  all  Inquisitors,  over  the  whole  world; 
to  it  they  all  refer  their  more  difficult  matters 
and  its  authority  and  judgment    ^eJnaL 
It   is   rightly   and  wisely  ordered   that  the 
Pope's  office  and  power  should   sustain   tins 
institution.     For  he  is  the  centre  of  unity 
and  head  of  the  church:  and  to  him  Christ 
has  committed  plenary  power  to  feed,  teach, 
rule,  and  govern  all  Christians."     Now  from 
this    it   annears,    1.  That  according  to  the 
g  vernmenfadopted  at  Rome,  the  Inquisition 
f.  a  constituent  part  of  their  systeuij-and 
hat   it  is  established    wherever  they  have 
such    a   foot-hold   as   to    make  ^   Possib  e 
Buchanan   found  one  even  at   Goa,  in  the 
East  Indies.     Whether  there  be  one  m  M 
country,  is  a   mailer  of  opinion.     But  it  is 
2nd   doctrine  to  have    it    f  possible.     8. 
The  Pope  is  the  head  of  the  Inquisition  over 
the  whole  world-and  the  congregation   o 
he  cardinals  at  Rome  is  the  supreme  court  of 
the  Inquisition;  of  course  it  is  to  the  Pope, 
and  his  cardinals,  we  are  to  took  as  the  au- 
thors, originally,  of  the  unparalleled  enormi 


113 


ties  which  have  characterized  this  bloodiest 
institution  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

Let  me  here  give  another  word  of  his- 
tory. 

A  critical  History  of  the  Spanish  Inquisi- 
tion, by  D.  J.  A.  Llorente,  formerly  Secre- 
tary of  the  Inquisition,  &c  &c,  translated 
from  the  Spanish  manuscript  in  the  presence 
of  the  author,  by  Alexis  Pellier.  2d  edit. 
(Paris  1818.) 

It  is  the  Inquisition  which  has  ruled  in 
Spain  from  the  year  1481  to  the  present  day, 
of  which  I  undertake  to  write  the  history, 
Tom.  1.  p.  140. 

Recapitulation   of  all  the    victims 

condemned  and  burnt, 
Burned  in  effigy, 
Placed  in  a  state  of  penance  with 

rigorous  punishments, 


31,912 
17,695 

291,450 


Total, 
Tom.  4.  p.  271. 

"When  the  French  obtained  possession  of 
Spain,  under  Joseph  Bonaparte,  Llorente  ob- 
tained permission  to  examine  all  the  archives 
of  the  Inquisition.  His  work,  therefore,  is 
the  most  authentic  that  is  extant.  When 
we  come  to  speak  of  these  subjects  as  prin- 
cipal, and  not  illustrative  topics,  we  design, 
Providence  permitting,  to  make  such  disclo- 
sures of  its  history  as  truth  demands.  But 
now  let  it  suffice  to  say  that  this  is  the  insti- 
tution which  Bellarmine  praises,  as  a  fine 
method  of  settling  disputes!  On  this  plan 
we  grant  you  that  it  is  easy  to  "determine  dis- 


putes" by  putting  an  end  to  all  the  dispu- 
tants on  one  side  of  the  question.  And  now 
Sir,  having  at  some  length  stated  the  methods 
used  by  the  church  of  Rome,  I  ask  if  the  in- 
ference is  not  irresistible,  that  yours  is  a  rule 
of  fraud,  and  of  force;  abhorrent  to  right 
reason,  mercy  and  truth,'  and  as  such,  that  it 
is  an  insult  to  our  holy  religion  to  say  it  was 
instituted  by  Jesus  Christ,  or  that  yours  is  an 
infallible  rule? 

\  In  regard  to  "the  reference,"  I  shall  be 
prepared  to  meet  you,  Providence  permit- 
ting, on  Friday  the  10th  of  May.  On  Mon- 
day the  6th,  and  until  the  evening  of  the 
9th,  I  expect  to  be  absent  from  the  city. 

Your  call  for  the  name  of  my  informant  is 
not  candid.  I  am  authorized  to  give  it  (as 
I  have  already  informed  you,)  whenever  the 
Bishop  shall  ask  it.  I  now  inquire,  does 
he  or  does  he  not  demand  it? 

Your  attempt  to  pervert  my  statements  on 
this  subject,  is  unworthy  of  the  character  you 
profess  to  bear.  From  first  to  last,  it  was 
stated  by  me  in  the  form  of  a  question;  and 
the  confidence  expressed  in  the  truth  of  the 
testimony  was  not  mine,  but  that  of  my 
worthy  informant. 

It  is  my  purpose,  in  the  next  letter,  to 
meet  your  call  for  a  definition  of  the  Protes- 
tant religion,  and  to  proceed  to  the  discus- 
sion of  other  topics  connected  with  the  con- 
troversy; holding  myself  in  readiness  at  the 
same  time,  to  meet  with  promptness  what- 
ever you  may  say  in  addition,  on  the  rule  of 
faith.     Yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinridge. 


! 


CONTROVERSY N°.   15. 


Rule  or  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  May  10,  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Jlev.  Sir, — If  there  was  any  thing  wanting 
to  show  the  weakness  of  the  Protestant  prin- 
ciple in  reference  to  the  rule  of  faith,  it  is 
found  in  your  attempt  to  supply  the  ab- 
sence of  argument,  by  the  introduction  of 
reproach.  I  wished  to  spare  the  feelings  of 
our  readers,  in  regard  to  the  crimes  which 
history  has  ascribed  to  Catholics  and  to  Pro- 
testants on  the  subject  of  religious  persecu- 
tion. Men  of  education,  on  both  sides,  have 
long  since  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  al- 
though persecution  forms  no  part  of  the 
religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  yet,  unhappily, 
there  are  few  denominations  that  have  not 
persecuted  when  they  had  the  power.  But 
all  are  agreed,  that  this  charge  comes  with  a 
peculiarly  bad  grace  from  either  John  Calvin 
or  any  of  his  disciples.  There  is  blood  upon 
his  memory;  and  it  looks  doubly  dark  and 
deep  when  associated  with'  the  recollections 
that  lie  set  up  to  be  a  man  of  god,  and  a  re- 
former of  the  church  of  Christ.  Bellarmine, 
indeed,  sanctioned  the  right  of  Catholic  prin- 
ces to  wield  ihe  sword  of  civil  power  against 
persons  condemned  by  the  church  of  heresy; 
— but  so  far  as  he  is  concerned,  the  fact  ex- 
hibits only  the  theory  of  persecution  and  the 
sanction  of  his  pen.  Calvin's  was  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  pen  and  faggot,  the  theory  and  the 
practice.  The  example  ot  the  master  has 
been  faithfully  imitated  by  his  followers. 
And,  appealing  to  the  decision  of  impartial 
history,  I  defy  you  to  show  a  single  state  in 
Europe  or  America,  in  which  Calviuists  or 
Presbyterians  conceded  free  toleration  from 
the  moment  they  possessed  civil  power, 
whether  derived  by  grant  from  the  crown,  as 
in  New  England,  or  acquired,  as  in  Europe, 
by  rebellion  and  usurpation! 

If  then  history  does  not  contain  one  single 
exception,  on  this  head,  I  would  leave  it  to 
the  good  sense  of  our  readers,  whether  it  is 
wise,  whether  it  is  modest  in  you  to  charge 
Catholics  with  persecution,  and  that  too,  in 
the  name  of  a  sect  which  has  stained  the 
soil  of  every  country  in  which  it  ruled, 
with  the  blood  of  the  Protestant,  as  well 


as  Catholic,  victims  of  its  bigotry  and  in- 
tolerance! It  would  seem  that  it  is  a 
crime  For  any  other  denomination  to  do 
what  Presbyterians  have  never  failed  of 
doing  when  they  had  the  power.  I  do  not 
perceive  by  what  divine  right  Presbyterians 
claim  the  monopoly  of  persecution.  It  it  be 
a  privilege  at  all,  which  I  deny,  Catholics 
possessed  the  priority  of  title.  They  did 
not  spring  up  in  the  16th  century  of  the 
Christian  church,  to  dispute  the  faith  of  Pro- 
testants. But  on  the  contrary,  the  Protestants 
then  came  into  existence  to  dispute  with 
them,  for  something  more  than  "the  king- 
dom which  is  not  of  this  world;" — viz.  for 
their  churches,  their  castles,  their  towns,  and 
their  kingdoms.  It  is  a  fact,  that  at  the  rise 
of  the  Reformation  so  called,  Catholics  pos- 
sessed every  thing;  and  that  Protestants  as 
such  possessed  nothing,  save  their  private  in- 
dividual estates.  How  came  they  then  to 
possess  themselves  of  public  power  and  pro- 
perty which  did  not  belong  to  them?  Did  they 
give  any  equivalent?  They  had  none  to  give. 
Did  the  Catholics  resign  them  voluntarily? 
No,  certainly: — if  they  had,  they  would  have 
escaped  the  charge  of  persecution.  They  were 
in  possession — defence  was  their  natural  pv'w'i- 
lege.  Kingdoms  were  tranquil  and  united 
in  the  profession  of  the  same  religion,  when- 
ever the  heresy  began,  and  the  question  was, 
whether  it  was  the  right  of  nations  to  ex- 
tinguish the  spark,  or  n\\ow  their  institutions, 
civil  and  religious,  to  be  consumed  in  the  po- 
litical conflagration  which  it  never  failed  to 
excite.  It  was  to  illustrate  this  question, 
that  Bellarmine  embarked  on  the  sea  of  po- 
litical casuistry.  He  contended  that  the  civil 
magistrates  were,  in  the  language  of  your 
standard  of  1821  "nursing  fathers  of  the 
church" — and  it  is  a  remarkable  coincidence 
that  he  attempts  to  prove  his  position  by  re- 
ference to  the  same  texts  of  Scripture  by 
which  the  Westminster  divines,  and  the 
"  adopting  act  of  1729,"  made  it  a  sin  for 
Presbyterians  to  "  tolerate  a  false  religion." 
Bellarmine  himself  must  be  responsible  for 
his  opinions  on  this  subject,  which  do  not  at 
all  belong  tojthe  faith  of  the  Catholic  religion 


116 


He  is  a  "standard  writer,"  in  treating  of 
Catholic  doctrines— of  questions  "  de  fide." 
But  on  points  of  political  economy,  or  civil 
government,  as  they  are  not  even  "  fere  de 
fide,"  his  pen  was  at  liberty  to  ramble  as 
well  as  that  of  any  other  individual.  His 
reasoning  on  the  question,  appears  to  me  as 
extravagant  as  it  can  to  you — and  I  am  just 
as  ready  to  reject  it.  For,  you  will  observe 
that  Catholics,  as  such,  are  responsible  only 
for  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  and  not  for 
the  private  opinions  of  her  members.  Show 
me  then  the  decree  of  any  Council,  or  the 
bull  of  any  Pope,  proposing  persecution  as  a 
part  of  our  religion — and  let  that  document 
be  the  proof  of  your  charge. 

Neither  does  the  inquisition  of  Spain  con- 
stitute any  part  our  religion.  Of  course 
you  are  at  liberty  to  make  it  the  theme  of 
declamation  as  long  as  you  please.  If,  how- 
ever, you  were  questioned  as  to  what  the  in- 
quisition really  is,  I  doubt  much  whether 
your  information  would  not  be  found  very 
defective.  It  would  probably  correspond  with 
your  knowledge  of  indulgences — "  a  bundle 
of  licenses  to  commit  sin." 

With  regard  to  the  "  Massacre  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew," I  condemn  it  as  much  as  you. 
It  was  a  deed  of  blood  and  horror.  But  let  the 
blame  be  attached  to  Us  authors,  Charles  IX. 
and  Catherine  of  Medicis,  who  favoured  the 
Huguenots  and  Catholic's,  alternately,  as 
their  interests  seemed  to  require.  But  to 
form  a  correct  judgment  of  this  sanguinary 
event,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  it  in  con- 
nexion with  the  events  by  which  it  was  pre- 
ceded. The  Huguenots  of  France  had  com- 
mitted many  similar  acts  of  barbarity.  Da- 
vila  relates  that  upon  the  death  of  Francis 
II.  when  liberty  of  conscience  was  granted 
them,  besides  burning  churches  and  monas- 
teries, they  massacred  people  in  the  very 
streets  of  Paris.  Heylin,  a  Protestant,  relates 
that  in  time  of  a  profound  peace,  they  fell 
upon  and  murdered  the  whole  clergy  who 
composed  the  procession  of  Corpus  Christi 
in  the  city  of  Pamiers;  and  afterwards  com- 
mitted similar  outrages  atMontauban,Rodez, 
Valence,&c.  (Hist.  Presb.  1.  ii.)  It  is  known 
by  the  proclamation  of  Charles  immediately 
after  the  massacre,  that  it  was  not  on  account 
of  their  religion,  but  to  anticipate  the  conspi- 
racy of  Coligni  and  his  associates — "  non  re- 
ligionis  odio,sed  utne  fariee  Col  inii  et  sociorum 
conjurationi  obviam  iret."  (Thuan.  lib.  lii. ) 
The  Huguenots  constituted  a  kind  of  inde. 
pendent  party  in  the  heart  of  the  nation- 
They  had  their  own  treasury  to  support 
themselves  in  their  wars  against  their  sover- 


eigns. And  Admiral  Coligni  went  so  far,  as 
to  propose  furnishing  ten  thousand  Hugue- 
nots for  the  army — and  declared  that  he  and 
they  would  be  obliged  to  take  up  arms  against 
the  king  himself,  if  he  declined  this  offer, 
and  refused  to  aid  the  Protestants  of 
Flanders!!  (See  Walsingham's  Despatches 
quoted  by  Digges.  226.)  Was  it  from  St. 
Paul,  that  this  chieftian  of  the  Protestant 
party  in  France,  learned  to  hold  this  lan- 
guage towards  his  sovereign?  Here  was  a 
subject  dictating  to  his  king.  Still,  all  this 
does  not  justify  the  horrible  measure  by 
which  that  king  rid  himself  of  that  subject 
and  his  party.  It  furnishes,  however,  a  dif- 
ferent range  of  motives,  beside  those  to  which 
Protestants  usually  ascribe  the  massacre. 

It  is  also  certain  that  the  king  took  infinite 
pains  to  make  his  subjects  and  foreign  prin- 
ces, especially  the  Pope,  believe  that  in  kill- 
ing the  Huguenots,  he  had  only  taken  the 
necessary  measures  of  self-defence  to  pre- 
serve his  own  life,  together  with  the  consti- 
tution and  religion  of  his  kingdom.  (Thuan. 
I.  ii.  Maimb.  1.  vi.)  And  the  Biographer  of 
Gregory  XIII.  clearly  shows  that  the  deli- 
verance of  the  French  king  from  this  pre- 
tended conspiracy,  was  the  event  for  which 
public  thanks  were  offered  at  Rome,  and  not 
for  the  massacre  itself,  as  you  have  stated. 
(Pagi  vol.  vi.  p.  729.)  Again,  in  reference 
to  the  number  of  the  slain,  it  is  evident  that 
your  information  has  not  kept  pace  with  your 
zeal.  Among  the  Huguenot  writers,  Perrifix 
reckons  100,000,  Sully  70,000,  Thuanus 
30,000,  La  Popelirine  20,000,  the  Reformed 
Martyrologist  15,000,  and  you  40,000,  "ac- 
cording to  the  report  which  prevailed.'' 
But  the  Martyrologist,  wishing  to  be  more 
correctly  informed,  procured  from  the  min- 
isters in  the  differnt  towns  where  massa- 
cres had  taken  place,  the  names  of  those. 
who  had  perished  or  were  supposed  to! 
have  perished; — he  published  the  result  in 
1582:  and  in  all  France  he  could  discover 
the  names  of  no  more  than  786  persons. 
(Caveirac  Dissertation,  xxxviii.) 

It  would  be  well,  also,  for  you  to  under- 
stand that  the  Catholic  clergy  were  the  most 
active  in  protecting  the  Huguenots  from  the 
vengeance  of  popular  fury.  And  that  among 
other  instances,  the  Bishop  of  Lisieux,  a  Do- 
minican Friar,  opposed  the  execution  of  the 
orders  given  in  the  name  of  the  king — de- 
claring "  it  is  the  duty  of  the  good  shepherd 
to  lay  down  his  life  for  the  sheep,  not  to  let 
them  be  slaughtered  before  his  face.  These 
(the  Huguenots  of  his  diocese)  are  my  sheep, 
though  they  have  gone  astray,  and  I  am  re- 


117 


solved  to  run  all  hazards  in  protecting  them." 
(Mainib. )  But,  Rev.  Sir,  are  you  not  driven 
to  great  straits,  when  you  give  a  disserta- 
tion on  the  horrors  of  the  inquisition,  the 
massacre  of  St.  Bortholomew,  &c.  instead  of 
arguments  on  the  rule  of  faith?  These  are 
stale  topics.  Your  introduction  of  them  was 
utterly  uncalled  for  by  the  question,  under 
discussion}  and  it  can  have  no  other  effect; 
except  to  mislead  ignorance,  confirm  preju- 
dice, and  inspire  hatred.  To  do  this  is  not 
a  comely  or  benevolent  office  for  a  minister  of 
the  Gospel,  which  breathes  but  peace  and 
charity. 

If,  however,  Protestants  were  immaculate 
on  the  subject  of  persecution,  you  might 
have  put  forward  this  charge  with  some  de- 
gree of  consistency.  But  all  the  reformers 
persecuted  when  they  had$the  power,  and 
sanctioned  it,  when  they  had  not.  If  there- 
fore, I  give  a  few  quotations  and  facts  to 
prove  this  assertion,  I  hope  that  neither  you 
nor  our  readers  will  be  offended  at  an  ex- 
posure to  which  your  eyes  are  unaccustom- 
ed, but  which  you  have  made  necessary. 
I  do  it  not  to  increase  the  separation  be- 
tween Catholics  and  Protestants,  which  is  al- 
ready too  great; — not  in  a  spirit  of  bad  feel- 
ing or  retaliation,  but  simply  to  show  that 
Protestants,  if  they  are  to  be  accountable  for 
the  deeds  of  their  ancestors  (and  if  they  are 
not,  I  do  not  see  why  we  should  be)  have  no 
reason  to  boast  of  superiority  on  the  subject 
of  liberality  and  religious  toleration.  But, 
Rev.  Sir,  if  your  forefathers  and  mine  have 
done  those  things  in  the  name  of  religion, 
which  religion  does  not  sanction,  I  would  ra- 
ther have  joined  you  in  walking  backwards, 
to  cover  their  deeds  with  the  mantle  of  obli- 
vion, than  be  obliged  to  join  you  in  exposing 
them.  Still,  painful  as  the  task  is,  you 
have  made  it  necessary,  and  it  must  be  ac- 
complished. 

It  is  but  right  that  I  should  begin  with  the 
Reformer  of  Geneva,  Calvin  himself.  Ser- 
vetus,  says  he,  "was  cast  into  prison,  whence 
he  escaped,  I  know  not  how,  and  was  wan- 
dering through  Italy  for  about  four  months. 
At  length,  having,  under  evil  auspices,  come 
hither,  he  was  arrested,  at  my  instigation, 
by  one  of  our  Syndicts,"  (Calvini,  Epist.  et 
Respons.  p.  294.)  Again,  (p.  290.)  "The 
author  (Servetus)  is  held  in  prison  by  our 
magistrates,  and  soon,  I  hope,  to  suffer  his 
punishment. 

In  his  letter  to  M.  Du.  Poet,  he  says,  of 
those  who  differed  from  him  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Bible,  "  Pared s  monstres  doiv- 
ent  etre  etouffes,  comme  fis  ici  en  I'execu- 


tion  de  Michel  Servet,  Espagnol."  That  is, 
"they  ought  to  be  strangled,  as  was  done 
here  with  the  Spaniard,  Michael  Serve- 
tus." 

This  gentle  Reformer  would  have  strangled 
(etouffes)  Gentilis.Okin,  Blaudrat,and  others, 
if  they  had  not  eitheryfe/  or  retracted;  which 
they  were  obliged  to  do — to  save  their  lives. 
Melancthon,  Bullinger,  and  the  Protestant 
clergy  of  Switzerland  generally,  and  in  so- 
lemn session,  approved  of  the  faggot,  which 
consumed  Servetus.  Bucer  declared  that 
he  should  have  been  "torn  limb  from  limb!" 

John  Knox,  was  ready  to  prove,  "by  the 
Prophets  and  plain  Scriptures  of  God,  what 
trees  and  generation  they  (the  Catholics)  be, 
to  wit,  unfruitful  and  rotten;  apt  for  no- 
thing BUT  TO    BE     CAST    INTO     HeLL    FIRE." 

(Appellation,  p.  30.) 

Even  the  meek  John  Wesley  as  late  as  the 
year  1780,  proclaimed  that  "they  (Catholics) 
ought  not  to  be  tolerated,  by  any.government, 
Protestant,  Mahometan,  or  Pagan." 

Let  us  now  look  for  the  mild,  tolerant, 
evangelical  language  of  Luther:  If,  "  says 
he,  in  his  book  against  Sylvester  Prieras, 
"we  dispatch  thieves  by  the  galloivs,  high- 
waymen by  the  sword,  heretics  by  fire; 
why  do  we  not  rather  attack  with  all  kinds 
of  arms,  these  monsters  of  perdition,  these 
Cardinals,  these  Popes,  and  all  this  sink  of 
the  Romish  Sodom,  which  corrupts  without 
ceasing,  the  church  of  God,  and  wash  our 
hands  in  their  blood." 

In  England  the  history  of  Protestant  tolera- 
tion  has  been  written  in  statutes  of  similar 
tint.  Protestants  were  burned  alive  for  heresy, 
and  Catholics  "hanged,  embovvelled  and  quar- 
tered," because  they  would  not  become  Pro- 
testants. To  deny  the  supremacy  of  Henry 
VIII,  or  his  daughter,  when  she  became 
head  of  the  church,  was  quite  enough  to 
entitle  any  one  to  all  the  privileges  of  mar- 
tyrdom. 

Your  old  friend,  Archbishop  Usher,  by 
wav  of  showing  his  "authority  among  Ro- 
manists," entered  a  Catholic  chapel  with 
armed  soldiers,  seized  the  Priest  in  his  vest- 
ments and  hewed  down  the  crucifix.  He 
and  eleven  other  Protestant  bishops,  solemn- 
ly decided  that  "  to  give  them  (Catholics)  a 
toleration,  or  to  consent  that  they  may  freely 
exercise  their  religion,  is  a  grevious  sin." 
(Plowden,  vol  I.  c.  4.)  In  1642,  the  same 
Usher,  extorted  a  promise  from  Charles  I. 
never  to  connive  at  Popery — and  on  this  in- 
tolerant pledge,  administered  to  him  the  Sa- 
crament. (Birch,  p.  278-9.)  Poor  Charles 
little  imagined  then    that  his    Presbyterian 


118 


subjects  would  entitle  himself  to  a  place  in 
the  martyrology  of  Protestant  persecution. 

But  Presbyterians  have  persecuted  greater 
men  than  mere  kings.  The  learned  Protestant, 
Grotius,in  his  dungeon,  is  an  instance  of  it — 
in  the  low  Countries: — where  the  Presbyte- 
rian Gomarists  persecuted  the  Presbyterian 
Armenians  with  the  most  deliberate  and  un- 
relenting fury.  If  we  turn  our  eyes  to  the 
Cromwellian  ascendancy  in  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  we  shall  see  what  kind  of  tole- 
ration Presbyterians  practised.  Dr.  Taylor, 
(a  Protestant,  A.  B.,  of  Trinity  College,) 
tells  us,  "that  they  (Puritans)  employed 
blood-hounds  to  track  the  haunts  of  these 
devoted  men"  (Catholic  priests.)  And  that 
"  during  the  latter  part  of  the  17th  and  be- 
ginning of  the  13th  century,  '  Priest  hunting'' 
was  a  favourite  field  sport  in  Ireland."  (See 
Hist.  Ireland,  vol  2.  p.  52.,  Harper's  Family 
Library.) 

The  Presbyterians, indeed,  were  themselves 
persecuted.  But  nothing  could  teach  them 
mercy.  The  "Pilgrim  fathers,"  fleeing  from 
intolerance  across  the  ocean,  had  scarcely 
landed  on  the  rock  of  Plymouth,  till  they  be- 
gan to  persecute  each  other.  They  put  the 
Quakers  to  death  without  pity,  as  "  pestilent 
heretics."  (Hist,  of  Bapt.  in  New  England, 
vol.  I.  p.  329.)  "Whipping,"  "branding," 
and  "  cutting  off  the  right  ear,"  were  miti- 
gated forms  of  punishment  for  the  crime  of 
heresy — that  is,  for  interpreting  the  Bible 
for  themselves.  In  a  word,  show,  in  all  his- 
tory, a  single  instance,  in  which  Presbyte- 
rians possessed  civil  jurisdiction  over  ten 
miles  square  of  the  surface  of  this  earth, 
without  practising  intolerance  and  persecu- 
tion, within  the  limits  of  their  territory! 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  Catholics  had  been 
as  persecuting  as  you  pretend,  could  they 
not  have  rid  the  world  of  the  first  Reform- 
ers, as  Calvin  rid  Geneva  of  the  Spaniard? 
I  will  take  but  one  or  two  cases  in  point. 
The  same  Dr.  Taylor  already  quoted,  says, 
"  It  is  but  justice  to  this  maligned  body  (the 
Catholics — he  might  well  say,  "maligned'") 
to  add,  that  on  the  three  occasions  of  their 
obtaining  the  upper  hand,  (in  Ireland)  they 
never  injured  a  single  person  in  life  or  limb, 
for  professing  a  different  religion  from  their 
own."  And  Thomas  Campbell,  the  Poet, 
(Morning  Chron.  London,  Feb.  11,  1833.) 
says,  the  toleration  practised  by  the  Catho- 
lics of  Poland,  "ought  to  make  Protestants 
blush." 

Again,  the  Catholic  colony  of  Maryland 
unfurled  the  first  banner  of  religious  free- 
dom that  ever  floated  on  the  breeze  of  Hea- 


ven. The  charitable  Dr.  Miller,  however, 
denies  them  even  the  merit  of  good  motives 
in  this.  He  seems  to  have  had  access  to  their 
intentions,  an d  tells  us  accurdingly,  that  they 
did  it  "  from  policy."  But  their  "  policy" 
in  this  regard  availed  them  little, — and  the 
following  testimony  from  Jefferson's  notes 
on  Virginia,  shows  how  unkind  it  was  in  a 
descendant  of  "  the  Puritans,"  such  as  Dr. 
Miller,  to  have  made  the  remark:  "The 
persecuting  laws  which  were  passed  by  the 
Virginians  soon  after  this  period  against  the 
Puritans,  made  the  latter  emigrate  in  con- 
siderable numbers,  to  Maryland,  that  they 
might  enjoy,  under  a  Popish  Proprietary, 
that  liberty  of  conscience,  of  which  they  were 
deprived  by  their  fellow  Protestants." 
(Jeff.  Query  XVII.)  What  was  the  conse- 
quence?   Puritanical  gratitude,  of  course. 

"When,  upon  the  Revolution,  power 
changed  hands,  the  new-men  (Ah\  Doctor!) 
made  but  an  indifferent  requital  for  the  lib- 
erties and  indulgence  they  had  enjoyed  un- 
der the  old  administration.  They  not  only 
deprived  the  harmless  Catholics  of  all  share 
in  the  government,  but  they  even  adopted 
the  whole  body  of  the  penal  laws  of 
England  against  them."  (Wyne's  Hist,  of 
British  Empire  in  America,  London,  1770. 
vol  I.  p.  239.) 

Need  I  inform  you  that  to  this  day  the 
laws  of  Protestant  intolerance  are  unrepealed 
in  New  Jersey  and  North  Carolina;  so  that 
for  exercising  the  freedom  of  conscience,  a 
Catholic  in  those  States  is  disqualified  from 
holding  the  office  even  of  Constable? 

Now  let  Protestants  see  whether  it  is  be- 
coming in  them  to  charge  us  with  persecution. 
At  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  the  faith,  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  the  civil  power,  the 
churches,  the  fortresses,  the  cities,  the  king- 
doms, the  crowns,  in  a  word,  every  thing, 
belonged  to  Catholics.  They  could  plead 
for  their  title  the  prescription  of  a  thousand 
years.  Supposing,  then,  we  grant  that  in  de- 
fending themselves  in  any,  or  all  of  these 
possessions,  they  were  guilty  of  excesses,  by 
how  many  considerations  may  these  excesses 
be  extenuated?  But  where  shall  we  find  the 
plea  for  Protestant  intolerance?  All  their 
possessions,  whether  belonging  to  this  world, 
or  the  world  to  come,  were  of  recent  origin, 
and  acquired  by  the  title  of  usurpation. 
Yesterday,  they  claimed  freedom,  of  con- 
science; and  to  day,  having  the  power  to 
refuse  it,  they  "hang,''  -'embowel,"  and 
"  quarter','  or  burn  to  death,  the  wretch,  who 
acts  upon  their  own  principles! !  If  God  has 
appointed,  as  the  rule  of  faith,  that  every 


119 


man  shall  understand  the  Scripture  for  him- 
self, then  Servetus  was  as  justifiable  as  Cal- 
vin in  their  interpretation.  Why  then  did 
Calvin  burn  Servetus?  On  that  principle, 
Servetus  would  have  had  quite  as  good  a 
right  to  burn  Calvin.  Why  did  Henry  VIII. 
the  father  of  the  Reformation  in  England, 
burn  every  body  that  stood  in  opposition  to 
his  religious  opinions, — if  the  freedom  of 
opinion  be  the  right  of  all?  Why  did  his 
Protestant  daughter,  Queen  Elizabeth,  the 
third  head  of  the  English  church,  why  did 
she  burn,  and  hang,  and  embowel,  and  quar- 
ter, those  who  differed  from  her  opinions? 

Why  did  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley  proclaim 
in  his  writings  that  not  even  "Turks  or 
Pagans"  were  justified  "in  tolerating  Ro- 
man Catholics?"  Why  did  John  Knox 
preach  that  Roman  Catholics  were  "  apt 
only  for  hell  fire:"  and  proclaim  that  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  magistrates  and  peo- 
ple to  put  them  to  death?  Why  did 
Presbyterians  put  their  fellovv-protestants  to 
death  in  Geneva,  England  and  America? 
And  these  are  people  who  reproach  Catholics 
with  what  does  not  belong  either  to  the  spi- 
rit or  the  letter  of  their  religion,  viz.:  the 
massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  and  the  Inqui- 
sition!! 

Let  honest  and  impartial  Protestants, 
therefore,  place  these  accounts  side  by  side, 
and  strike  the  balance  between  their  ances- 
tors and  ours.  Are  you  not,  consequently, 
as  unfortunate  in  appealing  to  this  test,  in 
favour  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith  as  you 
have  been  in  every  other?  But  pray,  Rev. 
Sir,  what  have  these  matters  to  do  with  that 
principle,  which  the  Son  of  God  established, 
"to  guide  us"  in  our  discrimination  between 
truth  and  error  ?  The  other  portions  of  your 
letter  shall  now  be  attended  to. 

1st.  I  trust  it  will  not  be  considered  ex- 
travagant in  me,  to  insinuate  that  the  plough- 
share has  actually  passed  through  the  radical 
delusion  of  Protestantism,  on  the  rule  of 
faith;  when  the  reader  will  recollect,  that 
you  have  not  dared  to  grapple  with  a  single 
argument  of  reason,  fact,  or  history  that  I 
have  adduced  to  show  its  absurdity.  You 
have,  indeed,  presented  yourself  as  the  advo- 
cate of  the  Bible,  and  the  defencer  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  if  my  arguments  against  the 
Protestant,  or  in  support  of  the  Catholic  rule 
of  faith,  were  directed  against  the  sacred 
volume,  or  the  Divine  Spirit!!!  You  have 
made  quotations,  which  are  found  to  have 
been  falsified,  in  every  instance  that  I  have 
had  time  to  examine.  You  have,  by  adding, 
and  omitting  words,  changing  punctuation, 


&c,  made  the  champions  of  the  Catholic 
church  to  speak  the  language  of  the  "  Pro- 
testant delusion,"  which  they  never  uttered. 
You  have  brought  forth  Luther  acquitting, 
and  Bellarmine  accusing  the  church  of  per- 
secution! You  have  made  me  a  fellow 
conspirator  with  the  Jews  in  condemning  the 
Son  of  God;  and  with  the  Unitarians  in 
condemning  the  Bible.  In  a  word,  our  can- 
did readers  will  perceive  with  astonishment, 
that  you  are  obliged  to  distort  my  position 
by  misrepresentation,  before  you  are  able  to 
bring  your  feeble  artillery  to  bear  against  it. 

2.  Doctor  Miller  has  said,  that  the  Bible 
alone  is  the  "only  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith 
and  practice;" — he  has  said  also,  that  in  re- 
ference to  the  points  to  be  decided  the  Bible 
"  is  no  test  at  all."  And  you  accused 
me  of  wanting  "candour  and  common  sense" 
for  believing  that  these  two  propositions  are 
contradictory  of  each  other!!  Does  the 
reader  imagine  that  he  will  save  his  charac- 
ter for  "  candour  and  common  sense,"  by 
subscribing  the  paradox  with  you,  that  the 
Bible  which  is  "  no  test  at  all,"  is,  at  the 
same  time  the  exclusive  and  "  stiflicient  rule 
of  faith  and  practice  ?"  Doctor  Miller  has 
subscribed  both  propositions,  and  you  are 
pleased  to  endorse  them.  Now  I  would 
sooner  forego  your  opinion  of  my  "candour 
and  common  sense"  than  believe,  that  they 
mean  exactly  the  same  thing.  In  proposing 
to  convict  the  Doctor  of  ignorance  or  misre- 
presentation, of  the  Catholic  doctrine,  under 
the  penalty  of  five  hundred  dollars,  I  did  not 
imagine  that  there  was  any  gambling.  The 
Doctor  ought  not  to  impute  false  doctrine  to 
his  Catholic  fellow  citizens — he  ought  not  to 
coin  a  religion,  and  say  it  is  theirs;  when  in 
fact  they  abhor  and  dfsclaim  it. 

3.  With  regard  to  the  manner  by  which 
Catholics  arrive  at  the  knowledge  of  the 
church,  I  have  twice  proved  that  it  is  not  by 
private  interpretation.  Even  in  my  last  let- 
ter, I  showed  that  the  authority  of  the  church 
is  a  fact  that  can  be  established  with  or  with- 
out the  Scripture;  and  you  do  not  pretend 
to  dispute  thy  reasoning,  but  return  to  the 
charge  as  if  it  were  original.'/ 

4.  You  are  strangely  at  a  loss  to  distin- 
guish between  a  doctrine  ot  the  church,  and 
an  opinion  of  schoolmen — although  the  dis- 
tinction is  obvious. 

5.  As  to  the  boast  you  make  of  the  advan- 
tages which  Protestant  countries  possess  in 
consequence  of  reading  the  Bible,  I  regret 
as  much  as  you  can,  that  they  are  only  the 
offspring  of  a  fruitful  imagination.  Germa- 
ny, Geneva,  England,  the  Reformed  church- 


12© 


es  in  France  and  Holland,  exhibit  the  ne- 
cessary consequences  of  the  Protestant  rule 
of  faith.  In  most  of  these  countries,  infi- 
delity is  preached  from  the  pulpit,  and  from 
the  Bible  itself.  The  principle  of  that  rule 
has  a  silent,  but  progressive,  and  certain 
tendency  towards  infidelity.  Nightingale, 
a  Protestant,  admits  this — and  adds  "  that 
there  is  no  way  to  prevent  it,"  as  long  as 
you  admit  the  principle  of  private  interpre- 
tation. In  Germany,  says  the  Scottish 
Episcopal  Magazine  for  1822,  "  many  of  the 
CU.ERGY.... consider  Christianity  as  a  vulgar 
superstition,  which  may  be  taught  while  the 
popular  mind  requires  it,  though    it    is  no 

LONGER  BELIEVED    BY    HIM  WHO  TEACHES  IT." 

Here  then  is  one  of  your  "evangelical"  na- 
tions. The  Rev.  Mr.  Rose,  a  Protestant,  in 
his  sermon  before  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge, ascribes  this  state  of  religion  to  the 
right  of  private  interpretation,  and  urges  "the 
wisdom  and  necessity  of  restraining  it." 
He  says,  that  "  among  the  German  Divines 
it  is  a  favourite  doctrine,  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble there  could  have  been  a  miracle!"  Such 
are  the  blessings  resulting  from  the  Protes- 
tant rule  of  faith!  When  Jesus  cured  the 
man  with  the  withered  hand,  he  merely, 
says  the  Protestant  Professor  Paulus,  "pulled 
it  into  joint."  This  is  the  glorious  conse- 
quence of  Protestant  freethinking!  And 
Professor  Shultness  explains  the  cure  of  the 
paralytic  in  the  Gospel  in  the  following  man- 
ner. "He  was,"  says  the  Professor,  "an 
idle  fellow,  who  for  thirty  years  had  moved 
neither  hand  nor  foot.  Christ  asked  him 
ironically  "  perhaps  thou  wouldst  be  made 
whole?"  This  irony  stirred  him  up;  he 
forgot  his  hypocrisy."  This  is  the  privilege 
of  Protestantism.     He  judges  for   himsetf. 

Mr.  Jacob,  a  Protestant,  in  his  Tour,  tells 
us,  that  "even  our  avowed  Socinians  would 
be  considered  by  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinis- 
tic  clergy  of  Germany,  as  equally  credulous 
with  the  orthodox!" 

Mr.  Robert  Haldane  (second  Review  of 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society)  says — 
"  On  the  whole,  the  greatest  number  of  Pas- 
tors and  professors  in  the  north  west  and 
middle  parts  of  Germany,  are  Rational  Na- 
turalists; in  other  words,  decided  deists." 
"  They  (Protestants  Christians)  are  very  lit- 
tle better  than  the  heathens,  either  in  refined 
scepticism  or  gross  superstition."  Still  they 
work  by  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  and  pro- 
fess to  follow  "the  Bible  alone."  "The 
Protestant  Ministers  in  France,  says  the  same 
author,  are  Brians,  Socinians,  Neolo gists, 
and  of  no  fixed  opinion  whatever,  as  respects 


the  Gospel."  So  much  for  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith!  They  do  not  violate.  The  use 
of  the  rule  warrants  them  in  the  blasphemous 
abuse  of  the  Scriptures.  If  then,  these  be 
the  consequences  of  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith,  think  you  that  the  principle  of  private 
interpretation  is  that  which  the  Son  of  God 
appointed  "to guide  us  in  maters  of  religion, 
and  to  determine  disputes  in  his  church?" 
Reason  and  experience  prove  it  impossible. 
It  is  the  "  delusion"  of  Protestantism;  and  its 
votaries — become  its  victims.  It  breaks 
down  the  barriers  of  faith,  leaves  the  doc- 
trines of  Jesus  Christ  at  the  mercy  of  every 
Christian  infidel,  or  dreaming  interpreter  of 
the  Bible;  and  thus  prepares  the  way,  for 
that  infidelity,  which  has  already  inundated 
Germany,  and  even  in  our  country,  has  se- 
duced many  an  orthodox  congregation  from 
the  Presbyterian  church.  It  caused  all  the 
heresies  of  ancient  and  modern  times — and 
yet  you  pretend  that  it  is  the  infallible  rule 
of  faith,  appointed  by  the  Son  of  God  !  Now 
I  beg  of  you,  do  not,  in  your  answer,  pervert 
all  these  testimonies  and  this  reasoning  into 
an  argument  used  by  Mr.  Hughes,  "  against 
the  Bible."  It  is  against  the  "  delusion"  of 
Protestantism,  by  which  every  individual  is 
authorised  to  make  the  Bible  say  just  what- 
ever he  pleases  that  Mr.  Hughes  is  arguing. 

How  different  is  the  Catholic  rule,  by 
which  the  Pastors  of  the  church  in  every 
country  beneath  the  sun,  teach  the  same  iden- 
tical doctrines!  This  alone,  considered  with 
due  reflection,  is  enough  to  show  that  it  is  not 
a  human,  but  a  divine  rule.  It  is  the  oppo- 
site of  the  principle  which  has  divided  Pro- 
testants into  such  a  multitudo  of  sects  and 
schisms,  from  the  high  church  Episcopalians, 
down  through  all  the  moods  and  tenses  of 
sectarian  guess-work,  at  the  meaning  of 
the  Bible,  until  they  arrive  at  the  condition 
of  Protestant  Germany,  where  they  teach 
Deism  from  its  pages,  and  this,  (let  it  be  par- 
ticularly remembered)  without  violating  one 
iuta  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith. 

You  may  say  that  infidelity  has  made  ra- 
vages also  in  catholic  countries;  but  you 
will  observe  that  in  doing  so,  its  advocates 
throw  oft"  the  mask,  rebel  against  their  ride 
of  faith,  do  not  preach  Deism  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  himself.  In  Catholic  countries 
infidels  pride  themselves  on  being  the  child- 
ren of  Philosophy;  in  Protestant  nations,  as 
Germany,  Geneva,  Scotland,  and  elsewhere, 
they  are  the  legitimate  descendants  of  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith.  You  tell  them 
that  the  Bible,  interpreted  by  each  individu- 
al for  himself,  is  the  only  rule.     They  in- 


121 


terpret  the  Bible,  therefore,  and  discover,  or 
imagine  they  discover,  that  the  Bible  teaches 
neither  mystery  nor  miracle,  and  that  the 
divinity  ot  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  not  a 
doctrine  of  that  book.  Then  you  call  them  in- 
fidels, for  denying  that  divinity,  whilst  they 
charge  you  with  superstition  and  idolatry  for 
admitting  it.  Who  shall  decide  between  you? 
Appeal  to  the  public  teaching  and  belief, — 
the  tradition  of  the  church?  But  this  neither 
of  you  admit.  You  judge  for  yourselves. 
How  then  will  you  be  able  to  save  this  fun- 
damental doctrine  of  Christianity?  But  you 
have  said  in  your  letter  that  "  if  men  will 
pervert  the  true  meaning  of  the  Bible,  there  is 
no  remedy  on  earth."  Now  if  private  inter- 
pretation be  the  right  of  all,  who  is  to  deter- 
mine what  is  the  "  true  meaning''  of  the 
Bible?  Your  Presbyterian  forefathers  in- 
terpreted the  Bible  differently  from  you, 
so  that  it  was  found  necessary,  some  fifty 
years  ago*  as  you  tell  us,  that  certain 
"offensive  passages,"  should  be  "  solemn- 
lyrejected"  from  the  standards.  They  had 
mistaken  the  "true  meaning,"  it  seems. 
All  other  denominations  differ  from  yon  in 
their  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  Then 
according  to  you,  they  have  "perverted 
the  true  meaning."  But  pray  are  all  de- 
nominations except  yourselves  hishonest  and 
insincere?  0  what  an  unhappy  state  of  con- 
tradictions and  inconsistencies  must  Protes- 
tants find  themselves  in? 

If  the  Bible  alone  be  the  rule  of  faith — 
and  every  sincere  man  is  capable  of  under- 
standing it — away  with  your  human  teach- 
ings, your  CREEDS,   ARTICLES,  COMMENTARIES 

on  the  Scriptures,  catechisms,  sermons, — 
extinguish  "your  tapers"  since  they  cannot 
"  help  the  sun  to  shine."  God  speaks  in- 
fallibly and  plainly,  you  say,  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Why  then  do  Protestant  ministers 
receive  large  salaries  for  telling  the  people 
what  God  says?  On  what  title  can  those 
salaries  be  received? — where  is  the  equiva- 
lent? If  the  Bible  is  plain  and  obvious  in  its 
meaning,  as  you  pretend,  then  furnish  them 
with  Bibles,  and  teach  them  to  read.  But 
do  not  interpose  with  your  fallible  human 
teachings  between  their  minds  and  the  in- 
fallible teachings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
the  Scriptures. 

But,  Rev.  Sir,  Protestants  themselves 
furnish  evidence  on  every  side  that  their  rule 
of  faith  is  a  "delusion."  I  need  not  remind 
you  of  Dr.  Miller's  unguarded  testimony,  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Duncan,  quoted  in  my  last 
letter.  The  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Marsh,  a  Protes- 
tant, says,  (Inquiry  p.  4)   "the  poor  who 


constitute  the  bulk  of  mankind,  cannot, 
without  assistance,  understand  the  Scrip- 
ture." Dr.  Balguy,  a  Protestant,  (Discour- 
ses, page  257)  tells  us,  that  we  might  as  well 
expect  them  "  to  enter  into  the  depths  of  cri- 
ticism, of  logic,  of  scholastic  divinity to 

compute  an  eclipse,  or  decide  between  the 
Cartessian  and  Newtonian  Philosophy." 
Burk,  a  Protestant,  says,  (Vol.  10.  p.  2. 
Lond.  Edit.  1818.)  "The  Scripture  is  no 
one  summary  of  doctrines  regularly  digested, 
in  which  a  man  could  not  mistake  his  way; 
it  is  a  most  venerable,  but  a  most  multifarious 
collection  of  the  records  of  the  divine  econo- 
my; a  collection  of  an  infinite  variety  of 
cosmogony,  theology,  history,  prophecy, 
psalmody,  morality,  apologue,  allegory,  le- 
gislation, ethics,  carried  through  different 
books  of  different  authors,  at  different  times, 
for  different  ends  and  purposes."  Paley,  a 
Protestant,  says,  (Philos.  p.  40.  Lond.  Edit. 
1819)  speaking  of  the  Scriptures,  "it  is  evi- 
dent they  cannot  be  understood  without  stu- 
dy and  preparation.  The  language  must  be 
learned,  the  various  writings  which  these 
volumes  contain,  must  be  carefully  compar- 
ed with  one  another,  and  with  themselves. 
The  qualifications  necessary  for  such  re- 
searches, demand,  it  is  confessed,  a  degree 
of  leisure,  and  a  kind  of  education  inconsis- 
tent with  the  exercise  of  any  other  profes- 
sion." And  yet,  according  to  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge, and  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  the 
fisherman  of  Cape  May,  and  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Jersey  Pines,  are  perfectly  "qual- 
ified" to  understand  them!!  But  still 
they  will  do  well  to  have  a  minister, 
if  they  can  pay  him,  who  will  treat  them 
every  Sabbath  to  an  essay  of  human  teach- 
ing, and  fallible  interpretation.  And  no 
matter  what  sect  he  may  belong  to,  the 
poor  people  are  astonished  to  find,  that  he 
and  the  Bible  speak  exactly  the  same  doc- 
trine— even  they  will  hug  the  Protestant 
"delusion,''  and  imagine  that  they  follow 
the  pure  word  of  God,  the  Bible  alone. 

What  surprises  me,  however,  is  that  you 
attempt  to  make  the  fathers  of  the  Catholic 
Church  speak  as  advocates  of  the  Protestant 
principle  of  belief.  When  they  recommend 
the  perusal  of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  to  be  un- 
derstood that  they  recommend  it  according 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  Church.  But  I 
defy  you,  in  a  single  instance,  to  show  that 
they  held  the  Scriptures  alone,  as  "  a 
rule  of  faith."  Whenever,  therefore,  you 
quote  the  word  "  alone,"  as  the  expression 
of  the  fathers,  look,  I  pray  you,  at  the  text, 
and  see  whether  they  used  it.      In  this  way 


123 


you  will  find  your  mistake,  or  the  mistake  of 
those  from  whom  you  copy.  The  Protestant 
rule  ot  faith  was  the  principle  of  the  here- 
tics, in  the  time  of  the  fathers;— but  they 
themselves  followed  the  rule  of  the  Catholic 
church.  St.  Augustine  says  "  the  church," 
(speaking  of  baptism)  "the  divine  authority 
commends,  and,  as  it  cannot  deceive  us,  he, 
who  fears  to  be  imposed  on  under  the  obscu- 
rity, of  the  present  question  will  consult 
the  church."  (Contr.  Cresc.  L.  1.  T. 
vii.  p.  168.)  "Do  thou  run  to  the  taber- 
nacle of  God;  hold  fast  to/  the  Catholic 
Church;  do  not  depart  from  the  ride  of  truth, 
and  thou  shalt  be  protected  in  the  tabernacle 
from  the  contradiction  of  tougues."  (Enar. 
iii.  in  Psal.  30.  T.  viii.  p.  74. 

St.  Jerome.  "  The  church,  to  which  you 
should  adhere,  is  that,  which,  having  been 
founded  by  the  Apostles,  continues  to  the 
present  dav."  (Adver.  Lucif.  T.  1.  p.  627.) 
St.  Epipham.  "  Thereis  a  royal  way  which 
is  the  church,  and  the  road  of  truth.  But 
each  of  these  heresies,  deserting  the  royal 
way,  turning  to  the  right  and  to  the  left, 
trusting  to  error,  is  carried  away,  so  as  to 
keep  within  no  bounds.  Therefore,  ye  ser- 
vants of  God,  and  children  of  the  church,  who 
follow  a  sure  rule  of  faith,  and  walk  in 
the  way'of  truth,  take  care  that  you  be  not 
deceived'  by  inconsistent  dicourses  of  lying 
sects.'"  (Hoer.  xlix.  t.  1.  p.  504. 

St.  Athanasius.  "Let  us  again  consider, 
from  the  earliest  period,  the  tradition,  the 
doctrine,  and  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
which  God  first  delivered,  the  Apostles  pro- 
claimed, and  the  succeeding  Fathers  fostered 
and  preserved.  On  these  authorities  the 
Church  is  founded;  and  whoever  falls  from 
her  communion,  neither  is,  nor  can  be,  called 
a  Christian."  (Epist.  ad.  serap.  T.  1.  parte 
%  p.  676.)  And  yet  you  quoted  him  in  fa- 
vour of  the  Protestant  rule  ! ! 

Origen.  "  As  there  are  many  who  think 
they  believe  what  Christ  taught;  and  some 
of  these  differ  from  others,  it  becomes  neces- 
sary that  all  should  profess  that  doctrine 
which  came  doien  from  the  Apostles,  and 
now  continues  in  the  church.  That  alone 
is  truth,  which  in  nothing  differs  from  what 
is  thus  delivered."  (Prsef.  lib.  1.  Periach.  T. 
1.  p.  47.)  I  could  fill  a  volume,  Rev.  Sir, 
with  similar  testimonies  from  the  Fathers  of 
the  first  five  centuries: — and  yet  you  take 
up  an  expression  of  theirs,  commendatory  of 
the  Scriptures,  tack  the  word  "alone"  to  it, 
and  thus  pretend  that  they  were  advocates 
of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith ! 

Does  not  their  language  and  practice,  liv- 


ing so  soon  after, the  times   of  Christ  and 
his  Apostles,  form  the  best  interpretation  of 
the  meaning  of  the  sacred  text  itself?    Does 
it  not  correspond  with    the    words   of  St. 
Paul,    calling  the  church    "the  pillar    and 
ground  of  the  truth."    (1   Tim.  iii.   14,  15.) 
"  Now   I  beseech  you,   brethren,   to   mark 
them    that    cause    dissenlions   and    offences 
contrary   to   the   doctrine   which   you   have 
learned,  and  to  avoid  them."  (Rom.  xvi.  17.) 
And  again,  "  other   sheep  I   have,  that  are 
not  of  this  fold;  them  also  I  must  bring,  and 
they  shall  hear  my  voice,  and  there  shall  be 
one  fold,  and  one  shepherd."  (John  x.  16.) 
"Now,    I  beseech   you,   brethren  that  you 
speak  the  same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no 
schisms  among  you."  (1  Cor.  i.  10.)     Again, 
"  lie  that  heareth  you,  heareth  me."  (Luke 
x.  16.)     "  Faith  then  (mark  this)  cometh  by 
hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  Christ" 
— (i.  e.  preaching  the  Gospel.)  (Rom.  x.  17.) 
"  He  that  knoweth  God,  heareth  us;  he  that 
is  not  of  God,  heareth  us  not; — by  this  we 
know  the  spirit  of  truth,  and   the  spirit  of 
error. ,"  (1  John  iv.  6.)      Finally,   "Go  ye 
therefore,"  said  Jesus  Christ  himself,  "teach 

all  nations and  lo,   I  am  with  you  all 

days,  even  till  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt, 
xxviii.  19.) 

It  is  thus,  Rev.  Sir,  that  the  "  ploughshare 
of  reason,  evidence,  and  argument,  drives 
through  the  radical  'delusion'  of  Protestant- 
ism;'''which  because  it  is  a  '  delusion,'  you 
are  unable  to  defend.  "  Reason!"  She  pro- 
nouncing it  a  supreme  absurdity  to  say  that 
every  man  is  able  to  interpret  a  book  such  as 
Burk  rightly  describes  the  Bible  to  be. 
And  the  blasphemies  which  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith  has  extracted  from  the  sacred 
volume,  confirm   the  judgment  of  reason  on 


the  matter.  "Evidence!"  Look  at  your  un- 
happy divisions  on  the  most  fundamental  doc- 
trines! "Argument!"  Like  the  lever  of 
Archimedes,  you  cannot  get  a  place  to  rest 
it  on !  If  you  look  to  antiquity  for  your  "rule 
of  faith,"  you  will,  indeed,  find  it — among 
the  Manaclueans,  Pelagians,  Eutychians, 
Arians,  &c  But  not  among  the  Fathers  of 
the  Catholic  church.  As  to  Scripture,  al- 
though by  the  Protestant  principle,  you  can 
explain  the  miracle  of  the  withered  arm, 
by  calling  it  the  mere  "jerking  into  place," 
of  a  dislocated  limb,  as  they  do  in  Germany  ; 
still  you  will  hardly  find  in  it  a  warrant  for 
the  principle  of  its  own  destruction,  viz:  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith. 

As  you  appeal  to  Bishop  Kenrick's  mercy, 
on  the  "warning  against  reading  this  con- 
troversy"—I  shall  allow  him  to  have  mercy 


128 


on  you,  and  shall  pursue  the  matter  no  far- 
ther. The  public  are  pretty  well  satisfied 
as  to  the  real  state  of  the  case.  The  charge 
was  from  first  to  last,  a  silly  fabrication, 
although  I  do  not  suppose  that  you  were  its 


author.     It  would  have  been  honourable  for 
you,   however,  to  have  retracted,  or  explain- 
ed it,  as  soon  as  you  discovered  the  mistake. 
Yours,  Sic. 

Jxo.  Hughes. 


THE  REFERENCE. 


Philadelphia,  May  10///,  1833. 
Rev.  Messrs.  Hughes  and  Breckinridge, 

Gentlemen,—!  had  the  pleasure,  this  morning, 
of  receiving  a  note  from  each  of  you,  intimating 
your  intention  to  call  on  me  this  evening,  touch- 
ing your  reference  to  me  of  certain  points  men- 
tioned in  your  published  letters.  I  beg  leave  to 
make  the  following  reply: 

Gentlemen :  While  I  duly  appreciate  the  honour 
conferred  on  me  by  your  concurrent  selection  of 
me  as  umpire  in  some  points  of  interpretation  at 
issue  between  you,  I  very  respectfully  beg  leave 
to  decline  the  acceptance  of  the  office. 

1.  Because  I  feel  entirely  indisposed  to  inter- 
fere, in  any  shape  whatever,  in  the  pending  con- 
troversy. 

2.  I  am  already,  by  profession,  a  party— a  pro- 
testant  Presbyterian.  Of  course,  it  is  not  for  a 
moment  to  be  expected,  that  the  public  could  or 
would  recognise  me  as  a  disinterested  and  un- 
biassed judge.  Then,  as  to  my  decision,  cui 
bono  ? 


3.  Any  decision  of  mine  would  only  itself  be- 
come a  new  subject  of  controversy,  and  thus  be 
calculated  rather  to  divert  attention  from  the 
main  point,  than  induce  both  the  disputants  them- 
selves and  the  public  to  concentrate  their  force 
and  regard  on  the  grand  question  in  debate. 
This  w'ould  have  a  tendency  to  dilate  and  pro- 
tract, instead  of  invigorating  the  discussion,  and 
accelerating  a  profitable  termination. 

4.  The  literary  public  who  feel  an  interest  in 
such  learned  and  elaborate  investigations,  as  the 
present  controversy  so  abundantly  furnishes,  will 
no  doubt  decide  correctly.  The  right  to  decide  is 
theirs.  Their  decision  alone,  can,  and  will  be 
ultimate. 

For  these  reasons,  Gentlemen,  and  others  un- 
necessary to  mention,  with  great  respect,  I  de- 
cline the  honour  you  have  had  the  goodness  to 
confer  upon  me. 

Gentlemen,  with  sentiments  of  high  considera- 
tion, I  am  your  obedient  servant 

S.  B.  WYLIE. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   16. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  May  llth,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

Sir, — One   of   the   ends  of  the   infallible 
rule  of  faith,    which,  (as  we  have  agreed,) 
was  established  by  Christ,  is   "  to  determine 
disputes  in  His  church."     In  my  last  letter, 
among    other   arguments,   I    dwelt   at   large 
upon    this,  that  the  method  of  determining 
disputes  in  the  church  of  Borne  is  anti-scrip- 
tural and  anti-Christian,  and  therefore,   not 
the   infallible   rule   of  faith   established    by 
Christ.     In  support  of  this   proposition,  the 
bloody  persecutions  of  your  church  became 
a  subject  of  legitimate  inquiry  and  of  direct 
proof.     The  force  of  the   proof  against  your 
rule,  consisted  in  the  fact,  that  these  nefari- 
ous persecutions  and   massacres   were  legal- 
ized by  the  church  of  Rome.     It  was  shown 
from   your   own   standard-writers,  who   had 
received    the  sanction  of  the    Popes   them- 
selves,   that    the    burning  of  heretics,    that 
public  persecutions,   and   the  indiscriminate 
massacre  of  heretics    was    held    to    be.  not 
only  the  right,   but  the  duty  of  the  church: 
that  the  Inquisition    was  established    by  the 
Pope;   that  lie   was  its  centre  and  head   for 
the  whole   world,    and   that    the   Inquisitors 
were  no   more   than   his   vicars.      And  now 
Sir,   how   do  you  meet  these  overwhelming 
facts?     By  the  comprehensive  and  magical 
reply,    that   these    standard-authors   (and  of 
course  the  Popes   who   approved   what  they 
said)  were  entirely  mistaken, — that  it  was  a 
mere  matter  of  opinion  with  them,  not  at  all 
a  doctrine,  and   that   they,  not  Mr.   Hughes 
and  his  holy  church,  "  must  be  responsible 
for    their    opinions."      Thus,    with     David 
Hume,  the  stubborn   existence  of  matter  it- 
self was  a  mere  idea  when  it  stood  in  the 
way  of  his  system,     The  world  was  only  a 
circular  idea;  man  only  a  walking  and  gar- 
ndous  idea;  and  so  the  laws  of  your  church, 
by  which  "  Infallible  Councils"  decreed  the 
destruction    of    innumerable    heretics,    was 
only  an  ecclesiastical  idea,   and    the  blood, 
which  flowed  in  torrents  under  her  maternal 
tenderness  and  tutelary  care,  was  only  a  ru- 
bicund idea!      It  seems  however,  that  his- 
tory, faithful,  tell-tale  history,  extorts  from 


you  the  confession,  that  Roman  Catholics 
have  been  guilty  of  some  of  the  blood  which 
I  have  charged  upon  them.  But  then,  you 
reply,  Protestants  have  persecuted  too,  and 
in  proof  of  it,  you  give  us  several  columns 
of  farrago  on  the  persecutions  of  High- 
Churchmen  and  Presbyterians,  Lutherans, 
Huguenots,  &c.  &c.,  and  present  to  us  in 
bold  relief,  a  distorted  history  of  Luther, 
and  Calvin,  and  Knox,  and  Wesley,  &c. 
The  amount  then,  of  your  defence  is  sim- 
ply this,  if  Roman  Catholics  have  erred 
and  sinned  in  this  way,  Protestants  have 
done  the  same.  I  reply,  we  admit  that 
in  a  comparatively  small  measure  Protes- 
tants have  done  the  same;  and  we  condemn 
it,  we  renounce  it,  we  mourn  over  it,  we 
pronounce  every  such  act  criminal,  every 
doctrine  defending  it  false,  and"every  coun- 
cil, or  ecclesiastical  body  of  men,  decree- 
ing such  doctrines  or  acts  fallible,  and  so 
far  gailty  too.  And  if  you,  sir,  would  be 
candid  and  consistent,  and  would  allow  the 
same  of  your  Councils  and  your  Popes,  truth 
would  be  the  result.  But  never,  no  never! 
for  what  then  would  become  of  your  boasted 
infallibility!  But  you  have  put  it  in  my  pow- 
er to  bring  this  question  to  a  speedy  and 
final  issue.  You  say  in  the  first  column  of 
your  last  letter.  "For  you  will  observe  that 
Catholics,  as  such,  are  responsible  only  for 
the  doctrines  of  the  church,  and  n>t  for  the 
private  opinion  of  her  members.  Show  me 
then  the  decree  of  any  Council,  or  the  bull 
of  any  Pope,  proposing  persecution  as  a  part 
of  our  religion,  and  let  that  document  be  the 
proof  of  vour  charge."  And  now  for  the  "  do? 
cuments.'',  "Bull  of  Pope  Innocent  VIII. 
for  the  extirpation  of  the  Vaudois,  given  to 
Albert  de  Capitaneis,  his  Legate  and  Com- 
missary General  for  that  expedition  in  1477" 
(The  original  of  this  bull,  with  several  others 
is  kept  in  the  library  of  the  University  of 
Cambridge.) 

"Innocent  the  Bishop,  servant  of  the  ser- 
vants of  God,  to  our  well    beloved  son   Al- 

bertus  de  Capitaneis we  have  thought  fit 

to  appoint  you  by  these  presents,  our  Nuncio 
and  commissary  of  the  Apostolic  See,  for  this 


123 


cause  of  God  and  of  the  faith,  in  the  Domi- 
nions of  our  dear  son,  Charles,  Duke  of  .Savoy, 
&c,  to  the  intent  that  you  may  cause  the 
said  Inquisitor  (Blasius  de  Mont-Royal)  to 
be  received  and  admitted  to  the  free  exer- 
cise of  his  office. ...and  we  by  these  presents, 
grant  you  a  full  and  entire  license  and  au- 
thority, to  call  and  instantly  to  require  by 
yourself,  or  by  any  other  person  or  persons, 
all  the  Jlrchbishops  and  Bishops  in  the  Duchy 
in  Dauphiny,  and  the  parts  adjacent,  and  to 
command  them,  in  virtue  of  holy  obedience, 
together  with  the.  venerable  brethren  our  or- 
dinaries, or  their  vicars,  or  the  officials- 
general,  in  the  cities  and  diocesses,  wherein 
you  may  see  meet,  to  proceed  to  the  premi- 
ses, and  execute  the  office  which  we  have 
enjoined  you,  and  with  the  aforesaid  In- 
quisitor, that  they  be  assisting  to  you  in 
the  things  mentioned  and  with  one  consent 
proceed  along  with  you  to  the  execution  of 
them:  that  they  take  arms  against  the  said 
H'aldenses  and  other  Heretics,  and  with  com- 
mon councils  and  measures  crush  and  tread 
them  as  venemous  serpents. 

"  And  if  you  think  it  expedient  that  all  the 
Faithful  in  those  places  should  carry  the 
salutary  cross  on  their  hearts  and  their  gar- 
ments, to  animate  them  to  fight  resolute.li/ 
against  these  heretics, — to  cause  to  preach  and 
publish  the  crusade  by  the  proper  preachers  of 
the  word  of  God,  and  to  grant  unto  those  who 
take  the  cross  and  fight  against  these  here- 
tics, or  who  contribute  thereunto,  the  privi- 
lege: OF  GAINING  A  PLENARY  INDULGENCE, 
AND  THE  REMISSION  OE  ALL  THEIR  SINS 
ONCE  IN  THEIR  LIFE,  AND  LIKEWISE  AT 
THE     FOINT     OF     DEATH,    BY    VIRTUE     OF    THE 

commission  given  you  above anil  like- 
wise to  dispense  with  them,  as  to  any  irregu- 
larity they  may  be  chargeable  with  in  divine 
things,  or  by  any  apostacy,  and  to  agree  and 
compound  with  them  as  to  goods  which  they 
may  have  clandestinely  or  by  stealth  acquired, 
or  which  they  dishonestly  or  doubtfully  pos- 
sess, applying  them  only  for  the  support  of 
the  expedition    for    exterminating   heretics; 

in  the  mean  time  to  choose,  appoint  and 

confirm  in  our  name,  and  in  the  name  of  the 
Romish  church,  one  or  more  captains  or  lead- 
ers of  the  war,  over  the  crossed  soldiers.... 
to  grant  further  to  every  one  of  them  a  per- 
mission to  seize  and  freely  possess  the  goods 
of  the  heretics  whether  moveable  or  immove- 
able  moreover,  to  deprive  all  those  who  do 

not  obey  your  admonitions  and  mandates,  of 
whatever  dignity,  state,  degree,  order,  or 
pre-eminence  they  be,  ecclesiastics  of  their 
dignities,  offices,  and  benefices,  and  secular 


persons  of  their  honours,  titles,  fiefs,  and  pri- 
vileges, if  they  persist  in  their  disobedience 

and  rebellion and  to  fulminate  all  sorts  of 

censures  according  as  justice,   rebellion,  or 
disobedience  shall  appear  to  you  to  require;" 

Given  at  Rome,  at  St.  Peter's,  in  the 
year  of  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord  1477, 
the  5th  of  the  Ral.  of  May  in  the  third  year 
of  our  pontificate. 

Here  then  is  "  the  Bull  of  a  Pope"  in  the 
name  of  the  Church  of  Rome  as  well  as  in  his 
"own  name''''  legalizing  a  ferocious  war  of 
extermination;  calling  " Jlrch-Bishops  and 
Bishops,"  cy-c.  fyc.  "  in  virtue  of  holy  obedi- 
ence," and  "  all  the  faithful  to  exterminate 
heretics  by  arms,"  '"and  the  proper  preach- 
ers of  the  word  of  God,"  to  preach  this  cru- 
sade, and  excite  the  people  to  destroy  here- 
tics; and  here  with  the  keys  of  heaven  in  his 
hand  is  the  Pope  "giving  a  plenary  indul- 
gence and  the  remission  of  all  their  sins  for 
one  year,  and  at  death"  as  the  reward  of  their 
crimes  in  shedding  the  blood  of  innumerable 
men,  women,  and  children,  because  they  did 
not  think  with  them!  Is  this  too  "a feudal" 
bull  ?  Is  this  too  "  an  opinion"  only,  of  the 
Pope?  And  now  have  you  not  some  subtle 
evasion  by  which  the  school  of  Loyola  has 
taught  you  to  slip  the  toils  of  truth  ? 

But  we  will  pass  from  the  Bulls  of  Popes, 
to  the  "  Decrees  of  Councils."  Bellarmine, 
(as  quoted  in  my  last  letter,  under  the  head 
that  *'  it  was  the  duty  of  the.  Church  to  bum 
heretics,  book  3.  c.  21.  of  The  Laity)  proves 
it  "  3dly,  by  the  laws  of  the  Church."  He 
refers  us  to  divers  chapters,  as  that  "on  ex- 
communication," "on  heretics,"  &e.  &c, 
where  "  the  Church  decrees  that  incorrigible 
heretics  should  be  delivered  to  the  civil  pow- 
er that  merited  punishment,  may  be  inflicted 
on  them.'1  He  proceeds — '■'the  Council  of 
Constance  also  condemned  the  sentiments  of 
John  Huss,  and,  handed  over  the  said  John, 
with  Jerome  of  Prague,  to  the  civil  poiver, 
and  they  were  both  burned  to  death."  This 
author  then  expressly  tells  us  that  "fhe  laws 
of  the  Church"  direct  the  destruction  of 
heretics.  Is  it  not  then  a  doctrine  that  the 
church  has  a  right  to  make  and  inflict  such  laws? 
He  appeals  also  to  the  infallible  Council  of 
Constance  and  instances  their  decrees,  in  the 
case  of  John  Huss,  and  Jerome  of  Prague. 
Here  then  is  one  Council.  Again,  the  de- 
cree of  the  4th  Lateran  Council,  which  was 
extracted  at  large,  into  my  letter  (No.  8.) 
is  a  living  monument  to  this  doctrine  of  your 
church.  In  your  letter  (No.  9,)  you  tried 
to  explain  that  fearful  decree  into  a  "feu- 
dal" act,  not  relating  to  doctrines  at  all. 


1 


But  in  letter  (No.  10,)  I  showed  that  it  did 
relate  to  doctrine  by  the  very  words  of 
the  decree.  You  made  no  reply, — you 
gave  up  the  defence,  and  there  it  lies  staring 
you  in  the  face,  and  the  voice  of  blood  cries 
to  you  from  the  ground!  Once  more. — The 
Council  of  the  3d  Lateran,  a  general  Coun- 
cil held  at  Rome,  under  Pope  Alexander 
the  3d  in  the  year  1179 — 27th  Canon,  de- 
creed as  follows:  "As  the  blessed  Leo  says, 
although  ecclesiastical  discipline,  content 
with  sacerdotal  judgment,  does  not  exact 
bloody  vengeance;  yet  is  it  assisted  by  the 
constitution  of  Catholic  princes,  in  order 
that  men  while  they  fear  that  corporal  pun- 
istement  may  be  inflicted  upon  them,  may 
often  seek  a  salutary  remedy.  On  this  ac- 
count because  in  Gascony,  Albi,  in  the  parts  of 
Toulouse,  and  in  other  regions,  the  accursed 
perverseness  of  Heretics,  variously  denomi- 
nated Cathari  or  Patarenses  or  Publicans,  or 
distinguished  by  sundry  other  names,  has  so 
prevailed,  that  they  now  no  longer  exercise 
their  wickedness  in  private,  but  publicly 
manifest  their  error,  and  seduce  into  their 
communion  the  simple  and  infirm.  We  there- 
fore subject  to  a  curse  both  themselv.es  and  their 
defenders  and  their  harbourers;  and,  under  a 
curse,  we  prohibit  all  persons  from  admitting 
them  into  their  houses,  or  receiving  them  upon 
their  lands,  or  cherishing  them,  or  exercising 
any  trade  with  them.  Moreover  we  enjoin 
all  the  faithful,  for  the  remission  of  their 
sins,  that  they  manfully  oppose  themselves 
to  such  calamities,  and  that  they  defend  the 
Christian  people  against  them  by  arms. 
And  let  their  goods   be  confiscated,  and  lbt 

IT  HE  FREELY  PERMITTED  TO  PRINCES,  TO 
REDUCE    MEN    OF  SUCH  A   STAMP    TO  SLAVERY. 

We  likewise,  from  the  mercy  of  God,  and 
relying  upon  the  authority  of  the  blessed 
Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  relax  two  years 
of  enjoined  penance  to  those  faithful  Chris- 
tians, who,  by  the  council  of  the  Bishops  or 
other  prelates,  shall  lake  up  arms  to  subdue 
them  by  fighting  against  them;  or,  if  such 
Christians  shall  spend  a  longer  time  in  the 
business,  we  leave  it  to  the  discretion  of  the 
Bishops  to  grant  them  a  longer  indulgence. 
As  for  those,  who  shall  fail  to  obey  the  ad- 
monition of  the  Bishop  to  this  effect,  we  in- 
hibit them  from  a  participation  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Lord.  Meanwhile,  those, 
who  in  the  ardour  of  faith  shall  undertake 
the  just  labour  of  subduing  them,  we  receive 
into  the  protection  of  the  church;  granting 
to  them  the  same  privileges  of  security  in 
property  and  in  person,  as  are  granted  to 
those  who  visit  the  holy  sepulchre."     Labb. 


Concil.  Sacrosan,  Vol.  10.  p.  1522,  1523. 
Here,  then,  is  a  third  instance  of  an  In- 
fallible Council  decreeing  the  persecution 
and  destruction  of  heretics.  And  more  than 
this,  we  see,  1st,  that  "the  remission  of 
sins"  is  promised  to  the  act,  and  2d,  on  the 
other  hand  those  who  fail  to  obey  the  ad- 
monition (to  take  up  arms  against  them,) 

ARE  INHIBITED  FROM  A  PARTICIPATION  OF 
THE  BODY  AND  BLOOD  OF  THE  LoRD !       Did  not 

this  decree  relate  to  morals,  to  duty,  to  doc- 
trine? Was  it  not  by  an  liinfallilble  coun- 
cil?^ How  then  can  you  shun  the  irresis- 
table  conclusion,  that  your  church,  on  prin- 
ciple, by  standing  law,  decrees  the  destruc- 
tion of  heretics?  Either  then,  give  up  in- 
fallibility, or  candidly  own  that  your  rule  of 
faith  carries  force,  persecution,  and  death 
itself  as  one  of  its  engines  to  settle  disputes 
in  the  churtii  of  Christ  ? 

But  this  question  is  decided  and  sealed 
up  by  the  creed  of  Pius  the  IV.  which  binds 
the  whole  communion  of  the  church  of 
Rome.  In  it,  it  is  expressly  declared,  "  I 
promise  and  swear  true  obedience  to  the\ 
Roman  Bishop,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  vicar  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

"  I  also  profess,  and  undoubtedly  receive, 
all  other  things  delivered,  defined,  and  de- 
clared by  the  sacred  canons,  and  general 
councils,  and  particularly  by  the  Holy  Coun- 
cil of  Trent;  and  likewise,  I  also  condemn, 
reject,  and  anathematize  all  things  contrary 
thereto,  and  all  heresies  whatsoever,  con- 
demned, rejected,  and  anathematized  by  the 
church." 

"This  true  Catholic  faith,  out  of  which 
none  can  be  saved,  which  I  now  freely  pro- 
fess, and  truly  hold,  1  promise,  vow,  and 
swear  most  constantly,  to  hold  and  profess 
the  same  whole  and  entire,  with  God's  as- 
sistance to  the  end  of  my  life." 

Then  every  Roman  Catholic  receives  all 
the  things,  delivered,  defined,  and  declared  by 
the  sacred  canons  and  General  Councils, 
and  condemns,  rejects,  and  anathematizes 
all  tJiings  contrary  thereto.  The  decrees  I 
have  recited  are  part  of  your  faith!  And  all 
these  canons,  and  decrees  of  councils,  taken 
collectively,  make  the  '•'•true  Catholic  faith, 
out  of  which  none  can  be  saved."  How  then 
can  a  true  Catholic  reject  these  decrees? 
Will  you  Sir,  say  they  were  not  infallible? 
Can  you  deny  that  they  are  part  of  the  re- 
ceived faith  and  doctrine  of  the  ehurch  of 
Rome?  Will  you  say  you  are  not  bound  by 
them? 

In  fine  Bishop  Walmesley,  (Gen.  Hist,  of 


127 


/ 


the  Ch.  chap.  9.  pp.  224)  thus  speaks:  "When 
a  dogmatical  point  is  to  be  determined,  the 
Catholic  church  speaks  but  once;  and  her  de- 
cree is  irrevocable,  the  solemn  determinations 
of  general  councils  have  remained  unalter- 
able and  will  ever  be  so."  Thus  also  the 
Bishop  of  Aire  (Dicuss.  Amic.  vol.  2.  pp. 
324)  declares  that  "  the  principles  of  the  Ca- 
tholic church,  once  defined,  are  irrevocable. 
She  herself  is  immutably  chained  by  bonds 
which  at  no  future  period  can  she  ever  rend 
asunder." 

I  do  not  wonder  then,  though  I  much  re- 
gret it,  that  you  loose  your  temper  and  sense 
of  propriety  with  your  cause.  You  had  been 
taught  to  believe  by  the  submissive  adulation 
of  a  few  partial  and  ignorant  devotees,  that 
the  Protestant  religion  was  a  system  of 
frailty  and  error  through  which  your  mighty 
"  plough-share"  could  drive  perdition  at  will; 
and  like  the  unthinking  Photon,  you  sprang 
with  unhappy  ardour  into  a  seat  which  you 
could  neither  fill  nor  guide.  While  you 
share  the  fate,  you  shall  inherit  the  fame  of 
Phaeton. 

Hie  situs  est  Phaeton,  currus  auriga  paterni 
Quern  si non  lenuit,  magnis  lamen  excidit  ausis. 

Shall  I  be  esteemed  speaking  too  strongly, 
when  I  confirm  these  remarks  by  a  return  to 
your  sad  dilemma,  in  the  case  of  the  Jewish 
Sanhedrim,.  You  had  appealed,  in  letter  No. 
11,  to  the  method  of  deciding  controversies 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  as  an  illus- 
tration and  defence  of  your  own  rule.  From 
Josephus,  as  well  as  from  the  Old  Testament 
you  adduced  "  the  High  Priest  as  guarding 
the  laws  and  determining  controversies;'' and 
holding  to  view,  the  high  Priest  and  his  San- 
hedrim as  a  model  of  the  Pope  and  Council, 
you  asked  with  much  confidence,  "  Did  the 
Saviour  of  men  appoint  a  different  principle 
whereby  to  determine  disputes  in  his  church?''' 
"  This  is  the  principle  appointed  by  God  in 
the  old  law;  why  shouldit  be  different  in 
the  new?"  In  letter  No.  12  to  which  I 
refer  the  reader,  it  was  most  palpably  prov- 
ed, by  your  own  admission,  that  "the  Judge 
of  controversy,"  to  whom  you  alluded  was 
fallible,  or  else,  that  Jesus  Christ  ivas  justly 
crucified.  Seeing  the  precipice  to  which  you 
had  brought  your  infallible  rule,  you  are 
driven  to  the  absurdity  of  admitting,  that 
one  infallible  tribunal  was  superseded  before 
another  was  established;  and  thus  to  save  your 
cause  you  make  a  fatal  chasm  in  the  Church 
of  God,  between  the  two  dispensations.  You 
were  also  driven  to  admit  that  infallible  tri- 
bunals "  may  be  superseded  when  it  is  proved 
to  them  that  they  shut  their  eyes  against  the 


evidence  of  the  truth .-"  consequently  your 
Church  may  be  superseded.  And  farther, 
it  was  shown  that  what  your  admissions  es- 
tablished, the  Apostle  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Roman  church,  11th  chap,  distinctly  de- 
clares, viz.  that  if  the  Roman  church  continue 
not  faithful  "  she  shall  be  cut  off."  In  your 
last  letter,  you  abandon  the  defence  of  this 
whole  ground  with  the  following  sentence, 
'"  you  have  made  me  a  fellow  conspirator  with 
the  Jews  in  condemning  the  Son  of  God." 
And  it  is,  most  truly,  just  as  you  have  said. 
But  then  sir,  it  was  your  argument  your  prin- 
ciple which  led  you  to  so  disastrous  a  result! 
and  yet  strange  as  it  may  seem  you  make  not 
a  single  attempt  at  the  support  of  your  cause, 
from  this  destructive  consequence,  in  a  let- 
ter covering  one  page  of  a  newspaper.  And 
can  it  be  that  such  a  defender  of  his  faith  still 
talks  of  "  the  plough-share  of  destruction" 
and  has  time  and  heart  to  fill  up  column  after 
column  with  scandal,  and  misrepresention? 
Can  you  be  believed  or  vindicated  by  any 
honest  mind,  when,  instead  of  grappling  with 
an  argument  you  dare  to  say  that  I  have 
"added"  and  "omitted  words,"  " changed 
punctuation,  &c.  and  by  so  doing  "made  the 
champions  of  the  Catholic  church  speak  the 
language  of  Protestant  delusion,  which  they 
never  uttered?  Jlnd  that  in  every  instance 
in  which  yen  have  had  time  to  examine," 
"the  quotations"  I  have  made,  "have 
been  found  to  be  falsified?  Where  are  the 
quotations  on  burning  heretics?  where  the 
Pope's  attack  on  the  freedom  of  the  press? 
Where  the  crowd  of  unnoticed  evidences  I 
have  adduced?  And  why  have  you  not  had 
time  to  examine  one  of  all  these?  You  have 
descended  in  the  use  of  such  language  to  a 
level,  from  which  I  hope  Christian  principle, 
self-respect,  and  a  decent  regard  to  the 
opinion  of  others  will  always  preserve  me. 
But  I  feel  called  in  duty,  publicly  to  charge 
vou  with  injurious  misrepresentations,  and 
to  challenge  from  you,  proof  of  your  state- 
ments, or  an  apology  for  your  insolence. 

Let  us  now  summarily  review  your  argu- 
ments for  the  Infallibility  of  your  church. 
The  ground  taken  by  Mr.  Hughes  is  that 
"  the  Bible  alone,"  cannot  be  the  true  rule  of 
faith  ;  but  that  it  must  have  "an  infallible 
interpreter;"  "that  the  church  of  Rome,  is 
that  Infallible  Interpreter  of  Scripture,"  and 
"  that  private  interpretation  is  the  radical  de- 
lusion of  Protestantism,  from  which  all 
heresies  have  sprung."  Of  course  before 
you  can  interpret  or  understand  the  Bible, 
you  must  go  with  it  to  the  infallible  church. 
But  the  question  arises,  which  is  the  infallible 


128 


church?  For  there  are  many  churches?  And 
is  there  any  infallible  church?  for  it  is  de- 
nied that  there  is  any  such  thing.  How  then 
shall  we  know?  Mr.  Hughes  says,  "  1  prove 
itivith  the  Scripture."  (See  letter  15,  3d  head 
and  other  letters!)  But  it  is  replied,  we  can- 
not prove  any  thing  from  the  Scripture,  with- 
out the  help  of  this  very  church  we  are 
hunting  for.  Here  then  at  the  threshold 
we  are  undone  on  Mr.  Hughes'  plan:  for  we 
dare  not  interpret  the  Bible  without  the  true 
church;  and  we  know  not  which  is  the  true 
church  until  we  interpret  the  Bible  and  find 
it  out.  Here  Mr.  M'Guire  fell.  Here  Bel- 
larmine  and  Dr.  Milner  find,  and  leave  an 
irreparable  breach.  In  this  ';  slough  of  des- 
pond'' Mr.  Hughes  began  to  sink  and  he 
fled  back,  and  never,  for  three  months  have 
we  been  able  to  recall  him  to  the  discussion 
of  this  radical,  and  with  him  ruinous  ques- 
tion. 

The  obvious  result  is,  that  infallibility  is  a 
figment,  except  as  found  in  the  Bible  itself, 
as  its  own  interpreter;  and  we  must  resort 
to  private  interpretation,  or  shut  the  Bible, 
and  never  find  the  church! 

2d.  But  Mr.  Hughes  rallies  on  new 
ground  and  says,  "  The  authority  of  the 
church  is  a  fact  that  can  be  established  ivith- 
out  the  Scripture."  "Even  in  my  last  let- 
ter I  showed  that  the  authority  of  the  church 
is  a  fact  that  can  be  established  with,  or  with- 
out the  Scripture." — Again,  ii2(\.  I  quote 
it,  not  as  an  inspired  book,  if  you  prefer  to 
take  the  ground  of  a  Deist,  but  I  quote  it,  in 
that  case,  as  historical  evidence  of  the  fact, 
in  which  sense  you  will  be  obliged,  even  as 
a  Deist,  to  admit  its  testimony.  3.  The 
history  of  Christianity  proves  the  authority 
of  the  church.  From  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles, the  church  proscribed  heresies, — preach- 
ed the  doctrines  of  Christ  to  all  nations, — 
determined,  by  a  final  decision,  all  contro- 
versies,— and  in  all  matters  of  religion  ex- 
ercised supreme  authority.  So  that  the 
authority  of  the  church  is  proved  with,  or 
without,  the  Scripture.''  (See  Letter  XV. 
3d  Head;  and  Letter  XIII.  Ans.  2d  and  3d.) 

The  amount  of  the  argument  is,  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  has  always  exercised  this 
authority,  of  an  infallible  teacher,  therefore 
she  is  an  infallible  teacher!  If  this  be  not 
what  you  mean,  I  know  not  what  it  is;  for 
without  this  it  is  nonsense.  If  this  be  your 
meaning,  it  is  the  same  as  saying,  if  you  will 
admit  her  infallibility,  then  I  will  prove  it ! 
But  I  deny  it.  Again,  if  you  prove  to  a 
Deist  from  the  Bible  as  from  any  other  docu- 
ment that  the  church  has  always  exercised 


authority — what  then?  The  argument  is  this 
and  no  more:  The  church  has  exercised 
authority,  therefore  she  has  exercised  it. 
Does  her  exercise  of  authority,  prove  her  in- 
fallible? By  no  means.  You  will  say  it 
would  be  vain  and  nugatory  to  exercise 
such  authority  without  infallibility,  therefore 
she  was  infallible.  But  Sir,  you  beg  the 
question  again,  for  the  very  matter  in  dis- 
pute is,  whether  she  was  infallible!  In  a 
word  you  presuppose  her  infallible,  in  order 
to  prove  her  so!  For  it  is  only  on  the  sup- 
position that  this  infallibility  exists  that 
the  practice  of  the  church  (in  the  exercise  of 
her  authority)  can  be  alleged  to  prove  it. 
Behold  then  your  irresistible  logic,  your 
endless  circle, — the  church  has  exercised 
authority  to  decide  matters  of  faith,  there- 
fore she  is  infallible, — the  church  is  infalli- 
ble, therefore  she  has  a  right  to  decide  mat- 
ters of  faith! 

3d.  There  is  still  another  circle,  endless, 
and  hopeless  as  the  last.  It  is  this:  that  we 
must  look  to  the  church  to  tell  us  what  is 
Bible  and  what  is  not  Bible;  that  is  the  au- 
thority of  the  church  must  determine  what 
is  the  word  of  God.  This  you  declare  with 
sufficient  explicitness  in  the  following  pas- 
sage (and  elsewhere)  in  the  3d  letter,  4th 
head,  "  When  you  say,  therefore,  that  my 
latent  meaning;  in  all  this  argument  is,  that 
we  need  the  church  to  tell  us  what  is  Bible 
and  what  is  not,  you  express  my  meaning 
exactly,  and  it  is  'latent'  no  longer. "  Of 
course  we  must  know  which  is  the  true  church, 
before  we  can  know  from  her  what  is  and 
what  is  not  Bible.  But  we  are  dependent 
upon  the  Bible  for  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
church.  From  it  alone,  can  we  learn  whe- 
ther the  Jewish,  the  Roman,  Greek,  or  Pro- 
testant Church,  be  the  true  church. 

When  we  call  on  you  for  the  proof  that 
yours  is  the  true  church,  you  point  us  to 
the  Bible  for  authority.  When  we  appeal  to 
the  Bible,  you  say,  I  defy  you  to  prove  the 
Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  without  the  au- 
thority of  the  true  church.  So  you  prove 
the  church  by  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  by 
the  church.  Both  cannot  be  first,  and  both 
last;  and  yet  they  must  be  so,  or  your  sys- 
tem is  destroyed.  Here  then  is  the  circu- 
lating syllogism  in  which  the  argument  for 
infallibility  runs  its  endless  round. 

"  Labitur  et  labetur  in  omne  volubilis  sevum." 

We  see,  then,  how  you  precipitate  the 
revelation  of  God  into  the  vortex  of  hopeless 
Deism,  by  resting  its  evidence  on  ground  so 
absurd   and  untenable.     And  these  are  the 


139 


empty  sounds  which  you  have  for  months 
been  ringing  and  repeating  upon  your  inter- 
minable circle,  and  from  which,  (if  you  have 
nothing  more  and  better  to  say,)  mercy  to 
our  readers  as  well  as  to  your  cause,  cries 
out  for  us  to  pass  to  other  topics. 

One  very  striking  fact  in  your  discussions, 
from  first  to  last,  is  the  studious  care  with 
which  you  have  withheld  from  view  the  true 
and  real  Roman  Catholic  rule  of  faith. 
You  have  made  many  objections  to  the  Bible 
as  the  only  ride,  which  have  been  promptly 
met  as  they  appeared;  and  when  the  pres- 
sure of  accumulating  difficulties  forced  you 
to  defend  your  rule  of  faith  you  avowed  it 
in  this  timid,  cautious,  and  partial  form — 
"  /  believe  (in)  the  Holy  Catholic  Church." 
On  it  you  founded  a  single  argument  from 
the  apostolical  succession,  which  even  your 
friends  and  admirers  must  consider  you 
as  having  entirely  abandoned,  after  a  very 
oblique  effort  at  its  defence.  Let  me 
not  here  repeat  but  refer  the  reader  to 
the  examination  of  this  subject  contained  in 
letters  No.  6  and  8.  But  the  excerpt  from 
the  creed  "  /  believe  (in)  the  holy  Catho- 
lic Church,"  was  surely  a  very  side-wise 
announcement  of  your  rule  of  faith.  In 
my  first  letter,  fourteen  weeks  ago,  I  sta- 
ted your  rule,  and  our's  side  by  side,  your's 
being  extracted  from  the  decrees,  &c.  of  the 
Council  of  Trent;  and  I  then  called  on  you  for 
a  defence  of  its  various  and  radical  defects 
which  were,  there  summarily  stated.  What- 
ever may  have  been  your  promises  and  the 
demands  of  your  cause  to  the  contrary, 
you  have  to  this  hour  almost  left  them  out  of 
view. 

For  example.  In  the  Decree  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  4th  Session,  «  on  the  Canon  of 
Scripture"  among  "  the  Sacred  Books"  are 
placed  "  1st  and  2d  Esdras,  Tobit,  Judith, 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch, 
1st  and  2d  Maccabees,"  making  with  the 
supplement  to  Esther  more  than  one  hundred 
and  sixty-five  chapters,  and  it  is  added 
"  whosoever  shall  not  receive  as  sacred  and 
canonical  all  these  books,  and  every  part  of 
them,  as  they  are  commonly  read  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  are  contained  in  the  old  Latin 
vulgate  edition,  let  him  be  accursed!""  Against 
these  books  I  have  made  the  most  serious 
charges,  and  am  prepared  to  substantiate 
them;  and  I  have  distinctly  called  you  to 
defend  their  claims  and  character,  and 
your  church  for  bringing  them  into  the 
canon.  But  you  are  pleased  to  pass  by  these 
charges  and  calls,  and  with  some  remarks 
and    authorities    on    their   canom'city    (not 


reaching  within  several  hundred  years  of  the 
apostles,)  you  pass  the  whole  subject  by,  and 
talk  about  "  prejudices"  against  these  books. 
This  large,  this  neglected,  and  important 
part  of  your  rule  of  faith,  has  called  aloud 
for  a  defender,  but  you  have  not  regarded 
the  call. 

2d.  Again  in  the  same  decree  it  is  said 
"  that  truth  and  discipline  are  contained  both 
in  written  books  and  unwritten  traditions 
which  have  come  down  to  us."  It  is  added 
that  the  Council  "doth  receive  and  rever- 
ence with  equal  piety  and  veneration  (as  the 
written  books)  "the  aforesaid  traditions;" 
and  finally  "  whosoever  shall  knowingly  and 
deliberately  despise  the  aforesaid  traditions 
let  him  be  accursed.^ 

Here  then,  is  another  multifarious  indefi- 
nable, and  undefined,  yet  obligatory  part  of 
your  rule  of  faith.  In  my  first  letter  I  also 
assailed  these.  Will  you  abandon  them  as 
the  forlorn  baggage  of  the  camp?  Shall 
your  silence  be  considered  conscious  safety, 
conscious  victory,  or  conscious  indefensi- 
bility? 

3d.  In  the  creed  of  Pius  the  IV.,  which 
condenses  into  a  symbol,  the  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  and  is  binding  on  every  Ro- 
man Catholic,  this  restrictive  oath,  is  taken 
"  Nor  will  I  ever  take  or  interpret  it' 
(the  sacred  Scripture)  otherwise  than  ac- 
cording TO  THE  UNANIMOUS  CONSENT  OF  THE 
FATHERS. 

Nec  earn  unquam,  nisi  jaxta  un  animern 
consensum  patrum  accipiam,  et  interpreta- 
bor.  Thus,  with  all  your  imaginary  infalli- 
bility, a  body  of  fallible  men,  who" did  not 
unite  as  Councils,  or  Popes,  but  as  private 
men., — who  have  no  unanimous  consent; 
who  contradict  each  other,  and  you  abun- 
dantly; and  who,  the  higher  you  rise  in  an- 
tiquity, the  more  they  condemn  you — these 
men  are  assumed  as  your  guides.  Ml  never 
agree /|if  they  did  they  are  fallible  interpre- 
ters of  the  word  of  God.  If  you  follow 
some,  you  are  sure  to  contradict  others; 
and  many  of  them  are  now  excepted  to,  and 
condemned  by  your  standard-writers;  and 
yet  without  their  "  unanimous  consent"  your 
rule  is  null  and  void.  Such  a  rule  you  can 
never  apply,— you  constantly  violate,  yea, 
and  you  do  not  attempt  to  defend. 

You  have  very  often,  had  the  hardihood  to 
say,  that  the  Bible  alone  as  the  rule  of 
faith  has  caused  all  the  heresies — and  that 
it  was  not  the  abuse,  but  the  legitimate  use 
of  the  Protestant  rule  which  did  this  evil. 
For  so  sweeping  and  adventurous  a  charge, 
it  is  reasonable  to  expect  some  proof.     And 


130 


as  you  state  these  propositions  with  so  much 
self-confidence,  will  not  your  readers  after 
so  long  a  time  look  for  some  evidence?  I 
put  you  therefore  on  your  proof,  or  on  your 
character— and  call  on  you  to  sustain  these 
profane  declarations — or  else  own  yourself 
a  detainer  of  God's  holy  word,  and  a  com- 
peer of  those  who  denounce  the  Bible.  For 
however  you  attempt  to  palliate  such  re- 
marks, it  must  be  apparent  that  they  put  you 
in  the  ranks  of  the  Deist  and  the  scoffer. 

Your  statements  on  the  religious  degeneracy 
of  Protestants  in  Germany,  if  we  take  them 
without  qualification,  (as  I  regret  to  say, 
can  seldom  he  done  with  your  statements,) 
certainly  show  that  Germany  needs  another 
Reformation.  But  you  give  us  not  one 
word  of  proof  that  the  free  and  self-inter- 
preting use  of  the  Bible  has  done  this  evil. 

If  there  be  force  in  such  references,  how 
will  you  account  for  the  present  state  of 
Spain,  of  Portugal,  and  of  Rome  herself, 
where  yours  has  not  only  been  the  supreme 
but  the  exclusive  religion?  There  for  ages 
no  rival  has  existed,  and  no  rule  but  yours 
has  worked!  How  do  these  countries  come 
out  from  the  hands  of  the  Papacy?  Let  us 
see:  "The  Inquisition  was  restored  with 
its  ancient  plenitude  of  authority"  (from 
1814  to  1820)  "and  among  its  first  acts 
were  a  publication  of  a  long  list  of  prohibit- 
ed books,  and  a  decree  that  all  prints  and 
pictures  as  well  as  books  should  be  subject- 
ed to  its  previous  censorship." — Brewster's 
Encyclopedia,  Art.  Spain.  Again.  "  The 
sale  of  the  bulls  of  Papal  pardon  and  indul- 
gence produces  an  immense  revenue  in  Spain. 
That  the  Spaniards  as  a  people  are  ignorant, 
supremely  ignorant,  it  is  impossible  to  dis- 
semble; but  this  comes  from  the  control  of 
.education  being  altogether  in  the  hands  of 
the  clergy,  who  exert  themselves  to  main- 
tain that  ignorance  to  which  they  are  indebt- 
ed for  their  power."'— A  Year  in  Spain.  Vol. 
11.  pp.  3-27,  360. 

"The  Ecclesiastical  establishment  of  Por- 
tuo-al  is  the  moral  blight  and  overwhelming 
curse  ol  the  country,  from  north  to  south, 
and  from  east  to  west.  A  crafty  priesthood 
intentionally  keep  the  lowest  orders  of  the 
people  under  a  degraded  sitperstitio?i.v  Por- 
tugal in  1828,  by  William  Young,  Esq. 
p.  38.  "The  re-institution  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, of  the  Jesuits,  and  of  Monastic  orders 
in  the  19th  century  is  a  retrograde  step  in 
the  progress  of  society." — Rome  in  the  19th 
century,  vol.  III.  pp.   174. 

"In  a  long  succession  of  ages  they  (the 
people  of  Rome)  have  been  the  successive 


sport  of  Roman,  Barbarian,  Goth,  Vandal, 
pope  and  Gaul.  But  freedom  has  revisited 
the  seven  hills  no  more,  and  glory  and  honor, 
and  virtue,  and  propriety,  one  by  one  have 
followed  in  her  train.  Long  annals  of  tyr- 
rany,  of  unexampled  vice,  of  misery,  and  ol 
increasing  crime,  polluted.with  still  increasing 
luxury  and  moral  turpitude,  record  the  rapid 
progress  of  Home's  debasement." — Rome  in 
the  19th  century,  vol  1.  p.  268. 

"  Superstition  prevails  not  only  in  Rome 
but  in  all  the  states  of  the  church.  A  go- 
vernment wholly  pacific  like  that  of  Rome, 
might  console  itself  for  political  nullity  by 
encouraging  and  protecting  letters;  but  an 
intellectual  deadness  seems  to  pervade  the 
Roman  States."— Malte  Brun's  Geography, 
vol.  7.  p.  678,  679. 

"  There   has   actually   been   in    Rome    a 


grave  and  formal  trial  for  witchcraft  in  the 
19th  century  !  I  begin  to  think  I  must  be 
mistaken,  and  that  the  world  has  been  push- 
back  about  300  years!  But  it  is  even  so. 
I  understand  that  not  one  miracle  happened 
during  the  whole  reign  of  the  French,  and 
that  it  was  not  until  the  streets  were  purified 
with  lustrations  of  holy  water,  on  the  return 
of  the  Pontiff,  that  they  began  to  operate 
again.  But  with  the  Pontiff,  darkness  return- 
ed, and  the  age  of  Popish  miracles  revived, 
within  this  little  month,  (31st  Ap.  1817,) 
three  great  miracles  have  happened  in  Rome. 
The  last  took  place  yesterday,  when  all  Rome 
crowded  to  the  capitol  to  see  an  image  of  the 
virgin  opening  her  eyes.  When  I  behold 
crowds  flocking  to  Imeel  before  these  talking 
and  winking  Madonnas,  I  cannot  help  ask- 
ing myself  if  this  is  really  the  19th  centu- 
i  y?"—Rome  in  the  19th  century. 

The  practical  effects  of  Romanism  in  produ- 
cing and  extending  infidelity,  as  a  matter  of 
history  is  worthy  of  an  extended  notice — and 
we  shall  not  forget  it.  But  now  let  me  ask 
whose  rule  of  faith  it  was  that  wrought  all 
this  mischief?  In  Spain,  in  Portugal,  in  Rome, 
there'  is  no  religion  but  your  own.  Especially 
in  Rome  "our  Lord  the  Pope"  has  all  to  him- 
self, coffers,  letters  (if  any,)  religion,  both 
swords,  and  all  the  people.  As  "  ignorance 
is  the  mother  of  devotion,"  they  surely  are 
too  "devout"  to  "think?"  and  it  would 
seem,  that  amongst  all  their  miracles,  a  holy 
and  enlightened  man  is  the  greatest! 

If  assertion  without  proof,  can  produce 
conviction,  and  a  confident  air  in  the  worst 
circumstances  can  recommend  a  cause,  you, 
are  surely  the  most  happy  and  triumphant  of 
all  polemics.  How  must  it  have  grieved 
your  Christian  readers,  and  made  your  office 


131 


frown  to  see  you  sporting  as  you  have  done 
with  the  Redeemer's  divinity.  You  had 
said  that  the  authority  of  the  church  could 
clearly  be  proved  from  the  Bible  alone, 
and  yet  that  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  Christ's 
Deity,  was  wholly  incapable  of  proof  from  the 
same  source  !  Now  1  would  here  give  you 
the  occasion  of  a  fair  trial  of  these  positions. 
I  will  turn  aside  with  you  for  a  season  from 
the  subject  we  are  now  discussing,  to  ex- 
amine before  the  public,  the  testimony  of  the 
Bible  on  this  subject.  Then  we  shall  put 
your  assertions  to  the  test.  But  if  you 
think  it  prudent  to  decline,  I  hope  that 
henceforth  literary  consistency,  if  not  re- 
verence for  your  Master  will  restrain  the  ex- 
pression of  such  unhallowed  and  unfounded 
opinions. 

I  regret  that  room  is  wanting  to  recapitu- 
late the  various  arguments  which  you  have 
left  unnoticed  "in  the  rear"  against  your 
rule  of  faith.  I  still  more  regret  that  my  let- 
ter has  already  overrun  its  assigned  limits, 
without  enabling  me  to  pass  as  I  had  design- 
ed, into  the  interior  of  the  Vatican.  But  I 
am  not  unwilling,  for  a  season,  to  await  your 
pleasure  in  these  matters,  if  you  have  any 
thing  more  to  say,  which  may  justly  claim  a 
review. 

As  Bishop  Kenrick  in  our  late  interview 
called  for  the  name  which  has  so  long  dis- 
turbed you,  I  now  redeem  my  pledge  and 
give  it  up  to  you.  It  will  be  found  attached 
to  a  communication  which  follows  this  letter. 
You  mistake  me  wholly  when  you  profiler  to 
me  the  "'mercy  of  the  Bishop;"' and  it  seems 
you  have  mistaken  him  too!  I  did  not  ask 
"mercy"  for  myself  or  for  my  esteemed 
friend:  faithful  history  has  taught  us  what 
are  the  "-tender  mercies"  of  the  Mother 
Church.  The  Bishop  had  a  right  to  call  for 
this  name — you  had  not,  unless  future  dis- 
closures show  that  you  have  a  more  immedi- 
ate connexion  with  this  whole  matter,  than 
now  appears.  And  now  that  you  have  been 
gratified  with  the  name  of  my  author,  I  have 
these  questions  to  ask  you — 

1.  Is  it  not  esteemed  and  treated  as  a  sin, 
(and  made  matter  for  confession)  by  your 
clergy,  to  hear  a  Protestant  minister  preach? 

2.  Is  not  the  reading  of  such  Protestant 
works  as  Luther,  Calvin,  Lord  Bacon,  Claude, 
Sir  Matthew  Hale,  Grotius,  Locke,  Milton, 
Robinson,  Saurin,  Jeremy  Tavlor,  Young, 
&c.  &c.  prohibited  to  Roman  Catholics? 

3.  Is  not  a  license  requisite  in  order  to 
read  them?  Does  not  a  man  in  reading  them 
without  a  license,  break  standing  regulations 
and  laws  of  the  Church  of  Rome?    Are  not 

T 


,  "books  of  controversy  beticeen  Roman  Catho- 
lics and  Heretics"  "subject  to  certain  regula- 
tions," and  ''•forbidden  to  be  indiscriminately 
read  ?" 

Is  not  the  indiscriminate  circulation  of 
the  Holy  Bible  in  the  vulgar  tongue  (i.  e. 
not  in  the  Latin)  declared  by  the  authority 
of  your  church  productive  of  more  evil  than 
good?  Is  it  not  required,  (when  you  enforce 
these  laws,)  that  written  permission  be  got- 
ten before  a  layman  can  read  it?  I  ask  an 
explicit  answer  to  these  questions. 

If  upon  examination  these  things  be  found 
to  be  so,  then  it  will  appear  that  even  a  little 
credulity,  on  our  part  was  not  a  "mortal 
sin;"  and  that  to  encourage  free  inquiry  on 
religious  subjects,  is  a  virtual  renunciation 
of  some  of  the  principles  of  your  "  un- 
changeable church."     Yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinridge. 


TO    THE   EDITOR    OF   THE    PRESBYTERIAN. 

Philadelphia,  28th  March,  1833. 
Dear  Sir, — As  I  am  upon  the  eve  of  leaving  the  city, 
and  as  I  perceive  the  Rev.  J.  Breckinridge.'m  a  post- 
script to  his  last  letter,  refers  to  me  in  such  a  manner  as 
may  perhaps  render  it  necessary  for  him  to  give  my 
name  to  his  opponent;  I  deem  it  proper  to  leave  this  in 
your  hands,  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  probable 
exigency,  should  it  occur,  in  such  a  way  as  to  relieve 
Mr.  B.  from  all  responsibility,  and  at  the  same  time, 
secure  justice  to  myself. 

Some  weeks  ago,  I  casually  mentioned  in  conversa- 
tion, a    report  which    I   had  heard,  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  had,  on  a  certain  day,  forbidden  his 
audience  to  read  the  controversy  now  in  progress  be- 
tween the  Rev.  Messrs.  Breckinridge  and  Hughes.    I 
was  requested  to  communicate  this  to  Mr.  B.,  who  was 
then  in  New  York.     I  was  willing  that  he  should  hear 
it,  and  it  was  communicated  by  a  mutual  friend.     Mr. 
B.  wrote  back  for  confirmation.     I  stated,  not  to  him 
but  to  a  friend,  the  evidence  upon  which  I  believed  it 
to  be  true :  and  indeed,  taking  the  testimony  which  I 
had,  in  connexion  with  a  pretty  general  rumour  that  the 
Bishop  did  not  cordially  approve  of  the  controversy,  I 
could  not  well  doubt  it.     Two  friends  of  the  most  un- 
questionable   honour  and    veracity,  informed  me  that 
they  had  been  told  by  one  who  was  present  when  the 
prohibition  was  published  from  the  pulpit,  whose  ears 
heard  it,  and  who  was  thus  for  the  first  time,  made  ac- 
quainted  with  the  existence  of  the   controversy,  and 
had  applied  to  them  for  more  definite  information'  res- 
pecting it.     In  these  circumstances,  how  could  I  doubt 
the  truth  of  the  report  ?     I  stated  my  impression,  and 
the  reasons  of  it,  which,  I  suppose — for  I  have  never 
inquired— were  communicated  to  Mr.  B.,  who  felt  him- 
self authorised— not  to   assert  it  as   a  fact,  that  the 
Bishop  had  done  so  and  so — but  to  put  the  question, 
whether  the  report  which  he  had  heard,  was  true,  or 
not  ?    To  believe  a  report  on  apparently  good  evidence 
and  to  ask  a  question  of  one  who  could  with  certainty 
answer  it,  are  surely  no  great  crimes.     And  these  form 
the  whole  of  the  charge  which  can  justly  rest  upon  Mr. 
B.  or  myself. 

When,  however,  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  H.  replied  to  Mr. 
B.'s  question  in  the  negatire,  I  was  convinced  that  there 


139 


must  be  Borne  mistake  in  the  business,  and  I  took  pains 
to  discover  how  it  had  been  made.  The  result  of  my 
inquiries  follows. 

The  person  with  whom  the  report  originated,  whom 
for  convenience  sake,  I  shall  call  M— — ,  has  not  been 
a  great  while  in  this  city,  has  been  educated  among 
Roman  Catholics,  and  although  not  a  member,  favours 

them.     M ,  as  a  stranger,  was  therefore  liable  to 

be  deceived  as  to  names  of  persons  and  places ;  but  had 
no  temptation  from  prejudice,  or  from  any  other  cause, 
to  fabricate  a  syllable  that  would  operate  to  the  disad- 
vantage of  the  Catholics.     M had  never  heard  of 

the  existing  controversy  before  that  day,  when,  as  she 
understood  the  preacher,  the  audience  were  advised 

against  reading  it.     It  appears  that  M ,  on  the  said 

day,  (as  far  as  she  recollects  the  precise  day,)  attended 
service  in  St.  John's  chapel.     The   Rev.  Mr.  Hughes 

did  not  occupy  the  desk,  but  one  whom  M did  not 

know,  and  was  said  to  be  a  bishop  by  those  of  the  audi- 
ence of  whom  she  made  inquiry.  I  have  since  learned 
that  it  was  a  young  priest  from  some  part  of  the  Con- 
necticut-valley,  who  might  be  of  opinion  that  the  ques- 
tion between  the  conflicting  parties  could  be  brought  to 
a  satisfactory  issue,  without  the  laity  concerning  them- 
selves about  it.  That  he,  in  some  way  or  other,  refer- 
red to  the  controversy  now  in  progress,  I  think  there 

can  be  little  doubt ;  for  M ,  as  I  have  observed,  had 

Hot  before  heard  of  it,  and  could  not  be  supposed  to  have 
imagined  it.  After  the  conclusion  of  the  service,  she 
herself  made  inquiry,  and  heard  others  inquiring,  what 
controversy  was  meant.  Not  satisfied  with  the  account 
which  she  then  received  of  it,  M — —  inquired  more 
particularly  into  the  nature  of  it,  at  those  persons  from 
Whom  I  first  received  my  information  ;  and  it  was  only 
with  the  view  of  obtaining  a  definite  knowledge  of 
the  nature  of  the  controversy,  and  in  that  connexion, 


that  she  mentioned  the  admonition  of  the  preacher, 
whom,  from  her  faulty  information,  she  took  to  be 
a  bishop.  If  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  deny  that  any 
such  admonition  was  given  to  the  people  by  the  Con- 
necticut-valley Priest,  then  I  shall  feel  bound  by  the 
respect  which  is  due  to  him  as  a  gentleman,  to   believe 

that  M has  been  guilty    of  a   misapprehension. 

Of  more  than  this,  she  cannot  possibly  be  accused ; 
for  it  is  evident  from  the  statements  which  I  have 
made,  that  she  had  no  temptation,  and  could  have  no 
motive  to  make  a  wilful  misrepresentation.  I  will 
not  take  it  upon  me  to  say,  that  she  could  not,  or  did 
not  mistake.  Yet  in  so  plain  a  matter,  I  should 
think  a  misapprehension  rather  improbable.  If,  how- 
ever, after  all  it  should  turn  out  to  be  a  misapprehen- 
sion, I  would  quote  it  as  an  instance  of  the  uncertain- 
ty of  all  oral  tradition. 

In  making  my  statement,  I  have  purposely  kept 
back  the  names  of  the  parties  from  whom  my  informa- 
tion, or  mis-information,  as  the  case  may  be,  was  ob. 
tained.  I  have  always  acted  upon  the  principle,  that  it 
is  dishonourable  to  make  aught  that  occurs,.in  private, 
friendly  intercourse,  an  occasion  of  dragging  the 
names  of  my  friends  before  the  public.  There  is  an 
implied  confidence  mutually  exercised  in  our  fireside 
colloquies,  which  I  would  no  more  think  of  betraying, 
by  exposing,  without  permission,  to  the  public  eye, 
what  was  said  by  this  or  that  particular  person,  than 
I  would  think  of  pocketing  the  table-plate  of  my  hos- 
tess, or  appropriating  the  hats  and  great-coats  of  my 
guests.  1  have  freely  shown  what  part  I  have  had  in 
the  affair;  and  if  I  am  blame-worthy  for  that  part, 
then  let  me  be  blamed.  I  bow  to  the  judgment  of 
the  impartial. 

Yours,  respectfully 

JOHN  BURTT. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   17. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  May  22,  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — Apart  from  its  own  divine  evi- 
dences, there  is  nothing  that  so  much  tends 
to  confirm  the  Catholic  in  the  belief  of 
his  religion,  as  the  fact  that  its  opponents 
are  obliged  either  to  misrepresent  the  doc- 
trines they  assail; — or  else  to  pervert  the 
testimonies,  by  which  they  attempt  to  com- 
bat them.  This  fact  is  attested  by  the  his- 
tory of  almost  every  controversy  that  has 
taken  place  since  the  commencement  of  Pro- 
testantism, in  the  1 6th  century,  not  except- 
ing the  ofrie  in  which  we  are  now  engaged. 
It  was  well,  and  candidly  observed,  by  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Nightingale  a  Protestant  clergy- 
man, that  "  from  diligent  inquiry  it  has  been 
ascertained,  that  party  spirit  and  prejudice, 
have  thrown  the  most  undeserved  oblojuy 
upon  the  religion  and  practices  of  the  Roman 
Catholics; — in  scarcely  a  single  instance  has 
a  case  concerning  them  been  fairly  stated, 
on  the  channels  of  history  not  grossly,  not 
to  say  wickedly,  corrupted."  (All  Reli- 
gions, page  65.) 

If  then,  as  this  Protestant  writer  testifies, 
the  channels  of  Protestant  history  have  been 
"grossly,  not  to  say  wickedly,  corrupted,"  it 
is  easy  to  account  for  the  blundering  ignor- 
ance with  which  Protestant  controversialists, 
generally,  approach  the  discussion  of  Catho- 
lic doctrine.  They  will  not  read  our  own 
books — but  they  derive  their  impressions  of 
our  belief,  from  the  distorted  portraits  which 
its  enemies  have  drawn.  The  conversion  of 
many  Protestants  to  the  church,  has  been 
the  frequent  consequence  when  they  detect- 
ed this  original  dishonesty  and  subsequent 
deception.  The  discovery  of  the  misrepre- 
sentations and  falsehoods  contained  in  the 
writings  of  Bishop  Jewel,  produced  this 
effect  in  several  distinguished  instances. 
One  was  Sir  Thomas  Copley — another  was 
the  Bishop's  own  Secretary  or  Chaplain, 
who  "espied  certain  false  allegations  in  his 
master's  book  whilst  it  was  under  the  print 
in  London,  whereof  advertising  him  by  let- 
ter, the  other  (Jewel)  commanded,  notwith- 
standing, the  print  to  go  forward. "    That  is, 


commanded  these  "false  allegations,"  to 
be  published,  even  after  thev  had  been 
pointed  out  to  him!  The  third  was  W. 
Rainold  "a  professor  and  preacher  of  the 
Protestant  religion;" — who  "fell  to  read 
over  Mr.  Jewel's  book,  and  did  translate 
some  part  of  it  into  Latin,  but  before  he  had 
passed  half  over,  he  found  such  stuff,  as 
made  him  grately  mislike  of  the  whole  reli- 
gion; and  so  he/ leaving  his  hopes,  and  com- 
modities in  England,  went  over  the  sea,"  &c 
(Athens  Oxon.  Vol.  I.  No.  174.  273.) 

It  is  true  that  on  his  death  bed,  Jewel  di- 
rected his  chaplain,  John  Garbrand,  "to  pub- 
lish to  the  world,  that  what  he  had  written 
he  had  done  against  his  own  knowledge  and 
conscience,  only  to  comply  with  the  State, 
and  that  religion,  which  it  had  set  up.  Al- 
beit, Garbrand  did  not,  for  fear,  publish 
this  so  openly  as  he  was  charged,  yet  did  he 
avouch  it  to  many  in  Oxford."  (Dr.  Richard 
Smith's  Prudential  Balance  of  Religion,  pub- 
lished in  1609,  page  54.) 

But  why  restrict  myself  to  a  single  testi- 
mony— even  the  illiberal  Mr.  Wix  says,  that 
the  Catholic  religion  is  "calumniated  cru- 
elty."— "It  is,  says  Dr.  Parr,  insulted  bar- 
barously." "No  religion,  says  Nigthingale, 
is  treated  so  unjustly."  And  Hume  de- 
clares, that  "  The  Protestants  seem  to  have 
thought  that  no  truth  should  be  told  of  the 
Papists."  The  learned  Grotius  reproaching 
the  Protestant  ministers  on  this  head,  re- 
ceived for  reply  "that  they  found  it  neces- 
sary for  the  public  good  of  the  Reformed  re- 
ligion."  (Letters  to  Vossius)  And  Vossius 
himself  in  the.  same  correspondence  writes, 
that  when  he  reproached  the  ministers  of 
Amsterdam,  they  admitted  the  iniquity  of 
the  proceeding,  "  but,  added  they,  if  we 
leave  off  such  language,  our  people  will  soon 
leave  us." 

Now,  however  inexplicable  these  proceed- 
ings may  appear  to  the  honest  but  unreflecting 
minds  of  many  Protestants,  to  me  they  pre- 
sent an  obvious  solution.  The  Reformers, 
as  they  are  called,  could  coin  new  religions, 
according  to  the  caprice  of  the  times,  and 
the  circumstances  in  which  they  found  them- 


134 


selves.  But  as  they  could  not  coin  or  create 
truth  with  the  same  facility;  consoquently, 
they  were  obliged  to  counterfeit  evidence*  to 
sustain  the  "delusion*' which  tlieyhad  publish- 
ed, and  whicli  the  strength  of  their  neck,  and 
the  weakness  of  their  heads,  would  not  allow 
them  to  disown  or  abandon.  The  mass  of 
Protestants  are  led  to  suppose  that  the  Bible 
gave  rise  to  the  Reformation.  But  alas! 
how  abundantly  is  this  supposition  refuted, 
by  the  testimony  of  their  own  writers. 
Grey,  himself  a  Protestant,  hits  off  the  his- 
tory of  the  English  Reformation,  in  a  single 
line — "The  Gospel  light  first  beamed  from 
Bullen's  eyes."  It  is  a  wicked  line  I  must 
confess; — and  if  its  author  had  been  a  Catho- 
lic, I  should  not  have  quoted  it.  Frederick 
the  Great  of  Prussia  says,  in  one  of  his  let- 
ters, "  If  you  reduce  the  causes  of  the  Re- 
formation to  their  simple  principles,  you  will 
find  that  in  Germany,  it  was  the  work  of  in- 
terest; in  England, ,  and  in  France,  the 

effect  of  novelty."  And  Baron  Starke  says, 
"  These  are  facts  completely  conformable  to 
history.  The  Reformation  owed  its  success 
to  a  variety  of  passions,  &c." 

From  what  source,  I  would  ask  you,  could 
genuine  arguments  be  derived,  to  support 
such  a  religion  as  this — being  indebted  to  a 
"variety  of  passions,"  for  its  origin,  exist- 
ance,  and  success?  From  the  Bible?  But 
the  religion  of  the  Bible  and  of  Christ  had 
been  preached,  promulgated,  believed,  and 
transmitted  together  with  the  Bible  itself, 
during  1500  years  before  the  Reformation; 
—and  consequently  this  Bible  could  not  be- 
lie in  its  old  age,  the  testimony  it  had 
borne  to  the  Christian  world  up  to  that  hour. 
It  could  not  forsake  the  Catholic  church,  to 
take  sides  with  Martin  Luther,  and  bear  him 
through  a  quarrel  originating  in  the  passion 
of  interest,   and   ending  in   the  scandal    of 


contradictions  which  were  proclaimed  from 
the  tripod,  give  ample  proof  that  it  was  the 
priest  that  spoke,  and  not  the  oracle.     How 
then  do   Protestant  controversialists  confute 
the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  church,  by  Scrip- 
ture?     They  have  two  ways.      One   is   to 
blacken   our   doctrines  with    misrepresenta- 
tion; as  when  you  said  that  indulgences  are 
"a  bundle  of  licenses  to  commit  sin" — and 
then,  of  course,  the  Scriptures  will  condemn 
them.    The  other,  to  quote  Scripture  against 
our  real  tenets;  and  whenever  they  do  this 
it  will  be  found  that  they  give  an  interpreta- 
tion to  the  text  which  it  never  had,  except 
among  heretics,  untilLuther  raised  the  stand- 
ard of  revolt   against  the   Christian  church, 
about  three  hundred  years  ago.  Butif  Protest- 
antism were  not  a  "  delusion"  would  it  re- 
quire either  of  these  expedients  to  sustain  it? 
The  religion  of  Christ  would  blush  to  acknow- 
ledge support  from  such  artifices.     And  yet, 
I  could  crowd  the  page  with  additional  names 
of  Protestant  writers  who  testify  that  such 
have  been  the  artifices  of  Protestantism;  and 
your  letters,  Rev.   Sir,  furnish  painful  evi- 
dence that  Protestantism  still  preserves  this 
peculiar  feature  of  its  identity. 

The  next  testimony  by  which  Protestant- 
ism could  sustain  itself  would  be  ecclesiasti- 
cal History.  But  how  could  ecclesiastical 
history  furnish  evidence  in  favour  of  a  reli- 
gion which  did  not  exist?  History  has,  in- 
deed, transmitted  to  us  the  account  of  all 
the  sects,  that  have  sprung  up,  flourished  and 
decayed,  since  the  foundation  of  the  church: 
— but  Protestantism  does  not  profess  to  de- 
rive its  origin,  from  any  of  them.  It  began 
with  Martin  Luther  and  this  fact  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  history,  previous  to  the  16th 
century,  is  necessarily  silent,  on  the  subject 
of  Protestantism.  Prophecy  speaks  of  the  fu- 
ture—history,  of  the  past — and,  as  Protestant- 


schism.     Luther,  indeed,  said  that  he  had    ism  was  not,  it  was  impossible  for  history  to 


discovered  a  new  religion  in  the  old  Bible — 
But  Calvin  said  that  Luther's  discovery  was 
a  cheat;  that  he  himself  had  discovered  the 
true  religion  of  the  Bible; — Whilst  Socinus 
contended  that  the  Bible  condemned  them 
both,  in  as  much  as  they  still  retained  the 
divinity  of  Christ  among  the  "unreformed" 
doctrines!  Thus  by  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith,  they  were  authorised,  to  treat  the  Bi- 
ble, as  an  accommodating  oracle;  and  as  each 
individual  by  that  rule,  has  the  same  right 
to  ascend  the  tripod  of  interpretation;  so,  ne- 
cessarily had  each  one  the  right  to  deceive 
the  people  in  his  own  way,  by  giving  out  the 


bear  any  testimony  in  its  favour.  And  yet 
you  talked  of  the  fathers,  who  were  all  Catho- 
lics, and  the  champions  of  the  Catholic  rule  of 
faith,  with  as  much  confidence  as  if  they  had 
been  staunch  Calvinists !  What  have  Protest- 
ants to  do  with  the  Fathers?  The  Bible  alone, 
as  every  one  interprets  it  for  himself,  is  their 
principle.  How  then,  the  reader  will  ask, 
can  Protestant  writers  quote  Catholic  au- 
thorities to  support  their  system.  I  answer, 
that  like  Mr.  Breckinridge  they  "  add"  and 
"omit"  words,  change  the  punctuation,"  &e. 
— You  seem,  Rev.  Sir,  to  be  greatly  offended 
at  my  having  made  this  charge  against  you. 


■word  of  Christ,  and  proclaimiug  as  loudly  as  But  whatever  impunity  you  may  expect  from 
he  might  "thus  saith  the  oracle."    But  the |  unsuspecting  Protestants,  it  is  too  much  to 


135 


suppose  that  I  should  connive  at  the  falsifi- 
cation of  authorities  with  which  your  letters 
abound.  You  wish  me  to  apologise  for  my 
"insolence."     Here  then  is  my  apology.     I 

WILL  MEET  YOU  BEFORE  THE  GENERAL  AS- 
SEMBLY, OR  IN  ANY  PUBLIC  HALL  IN  THE  CITY, 
ON  ANY  DAY  YOU  THINK  PROPER  TO  NAME, 
AND  CONVICT  YOUR  LETTERS  OF  HAVING  "  AD- 
DEd"  AND  "  OMITTED"  WORDS,  "  CHANGED 
THE    PUNCTUATION,"    AND    SO     FALSIFIED    THE 

AUTHORITIES IN  PRESENCE    OF    ANY    NUMBER 

OF   GENTLEMEN  AND    LADIES    WHO   MAY  THINK 

proper  to  attend.  I  hope  this  alternative 
will  be  a  sufficient  atonement  for  what  you 
are  pleased  to  call  my  "  insolence." 

In  our  late  interview  I  compelled  you  to  ac- 
knowledge that  you  had  garbled  the  extract 
from  the  4th  Council  of  Lateran  by  leaving 
out  whole  sentences;  although,  in  your  printed 
letter  at  the  time,  you  proclaimed  in  a  tone 
of  indignant  triumph,  in  answer  to  my  ques- 
tion, that  you  quoted  from  Caranza,  and  that 
it  was  continuous  as  well  as  literal.  Now  if 
you  quote  as  you  say,  "from  our  own  Ca- 
ranza," you  must  have  known  that  it  was 
not  continuous;  and  with  this  knowledge,  how 
could  you  answer  "  unhesitatingly"  that  it 
was!  It  looks  strange;  but  I  make  no  com- 
ment. 

In  your  last  letter,  you  give  an  extract  from 
a  Bull  of  Innocent  VIII,  pnblished  in  1477. 
The  original  of  this  Bull,  you  tell  us  is  pre- 
served in  the  University  of  Cambridge.  But 
it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  go  to  Cambridge 
in  order  to  convict  you  of  mistatement  in  re- 
ference to  it.  Pope  Innocent  VIII.  was 
elected  in  the  year  1484 — and  it  is  not  usual 
with  our  Popes,  to  issue  Bulls  seven  years  be- 
fore their  election;  such  Bulls  come  from 
another  quarter.  But  Rev.  Sir,  I  cannot  pass 
from  one  quotation  to  another  of  your  letters, 
without  being  pained  at  the  necessity  vou 
impose  on  me,  of  exposing  either  your  igno- 
rance of  the  authors  you  cite,  or  your  dis- 
honesty in  quoting  them.  Even  in  your 
last  letter,  whilst  you  affect  to  be  greatly  in- 
censed at  my  charges  on  this  head,  and  re- 
quire me  to  apologise  for  my  '.'  insolence," 
you  are  detected  in  new  falsifications.  But 
unfortunately  for  you  the  original  document 
is  not  so  remote  as  "  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge." 

I  shall  cite  the  canon  of  the  3d  Council  of 
Lateran,  just  as  you  have  done,  except  that 
I  shall  supply  in  italics,  the  passages  which 
you  have  found  it  convenient  to  suppress. 
These  passages  I  shall  place  in  the  context, 
that  the  reader  may  perceive  how  much  the 


whole  is  falsified  by  you — and  judge  accord' 
ingly. 

"As  the  blessed  Leo  says,  although   ec- 
clesiastical discipline,  content  with  sacerdo- 
tal  judgment,   does   not  exact   bloody   ven- 
geance; yet,  it  is   assisted  by  the   constitu- 
tion of  Catholic  princes,  in  order  that  men, 
while   they    fear   that    corporal    punishment 
may  be  inflicted  on  them,  may  often  seek  a 
salutary  remedy.     On  this  account  because  in 
Gascony,  Albi,  in  the  parts  of  Toulouse,  and 
and  in  other  regions,  the  accursed  perverse- 
ness,  of  the  heretics  variously  denominated 
Cathari,or  Patarenas,  or  Publicans,  or  distin- 
guished by  sundry  names,  has  so  prevailed,  that 
they  now  no  longer  exercise  their  wickedness 
in  private, but  publicly  manifest  their  errors, 
and  seduce  into  their  communion  the  simple 
and  infirm.     We  therefore  subject  to  a  curse, 
(badly  translated   of  course,  but  no  matter) 
both  themselves  and  their  defenders  and  har- 
bourers;  and,  under  a  curse  we  prohibit  all 
persons  from  admitting  them  into  their  houses, 
or  receiving  them  upon  their  lands,  or  cherish- 
ing them,  or  exercising  any  trade  with  them." 
But  if  they  die  in  this  sin,  let  them  not   receive 
Christian   burial,  under  pretence  of  any  privilege 
granted  by  us,  or  any  other  pretext  whatever,-  and 
let  no  offering  be  made  for  them. 

As  to  the  Brabantians,  Navarii,  Basculi,  Coterelli 
and  Triaverdinii  who  exercise  such  cruelty  towards 
the  Christians,  that  they  pay  no  respect  to  churches  or 
monasteries,  spare  neither  widows,  nor  virgins,  neither 
old  nor  young,  neither  sex  nor  age,  but  after  the  man- 
ner of  the  Pagans  destroy  and  desolate  every  thing,  we 
in  like  manner,  decree  that  such  persons  as  shall  pro- 
tect, or  retain  or  encourage  them  in  districts  in  which 
they  commit  these  excesses,  be  publicly  denounced  in  the 
churches  on  Sundays  and  festival  days,  and  that  they 
be  considered  as  bound  by  the  same  censure  and  penalty 
as  the  aforesaid  heretics,  and  be  excluded  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  church,  until  they  shall  have  abjured 
that  pestiferous  consociation  and  heresy.  But  let  all 
persons  who  are  implicated  with  them  in  any  crime 
(alluding  to  their  vassals)  know  that  they  are  released 
from  the  obligation  of  fealty,  homage,  and  subjection 
to  them,  so  long  as  they  continue  in  so  great  iniquity. ," 
"Moreover  we  enjoin  (on  these,  and)  all  the 
faithful,  for  the  remission  of  their  sins,  that 
they  manfully  oppose  themselves  to  such 
"  calamities''^  (no,  Mr.  Breckinridge, — look 
in  your  Dictionary: — "  Cladibus"  means 
more — the  crimes  alluded  to  in  the  pas- 
sage which  you  "  omitted, '.'  falsifying  there- 
by the  whole)  and  that  they  defend  (bless 
me  what  persecution!!!)  the  Christian  peo- 
ple by  arms.  And  let  their  goods  be  confis- 
cated, and  let  it  be  freely  permitted  to 
princes  to  reduce  men  of  such  a  stamp  to 
slavery,"  &c. 

The  rest  of  the  quotation  the  reader  may 


136 


refer  to  in  your  own  letter.  I  wonder 
whether  "  men  of  such  a  stamp,"  would  not 
be  reduced  to  the  penitentiary,  if  they  com- 
mitted such  crimes  in  our  day  and  in  our 
country  ?  Let  Protestants  read  this  as  it  is  in 
the  original,  and  then  excluding  the  passa- 
ges marked  in  italics,  and  suppressed  bv 
their  champion!  See  the  means  by  which 
their  cause  is  defended!  Would  a  good 
cause  require  such  support?  Will  not  hon- 
ourable Protestants  reject  it  with  indigna- 
tion ?  And  yet  you  Rev.  Sir,  have  politely 
charged  me  with  "insolence,"  for  "dating'' 
to  question  the  character  of  your  quotations. 
It  was  to  save  myself  the  painful  necessity  of 
these  exposures  that  I,  long  since,  cautioned 
you  to  beware  of  your  authorities — knowing 
that  it  is  by  such  means  that  the  delusion  of 
Protestantism  has  for  the  most  part,  sustained 
itself  until  this  hour.  It  is  a  hard  case  in- 
deed, that  your  falsifications  of  Catholic  testi- 
monies (with  which  the  people  are  unacquaint- 
ed in  general)  are  now  more  numerous  than 
your  letters,  which  I  pledge  myself  to  prove, 
publicly,  as  soon  as  you  please.  It  seems 
you  cannot  give  even  the  title  of  a  chapter  in 
a  book,  without  falsifying  it.  Bellarmine's 
Chapter  is  headed  "  Posse  Hsereticos  ab  ec- 
clesia  damnatos,  temporalibus  pcenis,  et 
etiam  morte  mulctari."  Now  every  school- 
boy knows  that  this  merely  states,  that 
"  Heretics,  condemned  by  the  church,  may 
be  punished  with  temporal  penalties,  and  even 
death."  And  yet  your  version  of  it  in  your 
last  letter  placed  in  italics,  and  between 
inverted  commas,  is,  that  "it  was  the  duty 
of  the  church  to  burn  heretics."  Book 
3.  c  21.  of  the  Laity — directing  us  to  the 
very  line,  and  page,  which  if  you  ever  saw 
it,  you  must  have  known  would  convict  you 
of  falsifying  !  These  transgressions  have 
been,  Rev.  Sir,  so  frequent,  and  so  flagrant, 
that  were  I  so  disposed,  I  might  hold  you  as 
unworthy  of  literary  intercourse,  until  you 
shall  have  cleared  them  up.  When  I  ac- 
cepted your  challenge  addressed  to  "  Priests 
and  Bishops,''  I  did  not  anticipate  that  I 
should  have  to  suspect  your  references  at 
every  step  of  your  progress.  You  have,  in- 
deed, accused  me  of  misrepresentation;  but 
you  have  not  pointed  out  the  passage  in  my 
letters  that  contains  it.  It  is  true  that  I  have 
shown  that  all  the  Reformers,  so  called, 
were  persecutors;  but  I  quoted  their  conduct 
and  language  in  support  of  the  charge,  and 
if  you  show  me  that  I  have  made  even  a 
mistake,  I  will  cheerfully  correct  it.  In  fact 
it  was  impossible  for  me  to  "  misrepresent'' 
when  I  only  repeated  their  own  words. 


Now  for  the  subject  of  persecution.  I 
proved  in  my  last  letter  that  the  founders  of 
Presbyterianism  were  men  of  blood,  both 
in  principle  and  practice.  I  challenged 
you  to  show  in  the  history  of  the  world,  an 
instance  in  which  Presbyterians  had  the  po- 
litical ascendancy,  without  using  it  for  the 
purposes  of  persecution.  And  although,  in 
reply  you  "admit  that  in  a  comparatively 
small  measure  Protestants  have  done  the 
same;"  and  although  "you  condemn  it,  you 
renounce  it,  you  mourn  over  i/,"  &c,  yet  it 
is  extremely  questionable  whether  Presby- 
terians are  completely  emancipated  from 
the  intolerant  genius  of  their  doctrines,  and 
the  perverse  propensities  of  their  forefathers. 
If  there  is  no  single  instance  in  all  history  in 
which  Presbyterians  did  not  persecute,  when 
they  had  the  power,  both  Catholics  and 
Protestants — then,  I  know  not  on  what 
ground  you  can  expect  us  to  believe  that 
they  would  not  do  the  same  again.  Even 
now  according  to  your  standard  of  1821,  the 
magistrates  are  "nursing  fathers  to  the 
church  of  our  common  Lord." 

Catholics  on  the  contrary  can  point  with 
pride  to  many  countries,  in  which  the  Pro- 
testants are  not  one  to  twenty  of  the  popula- 
tion, and  yet  are  secured  in  the  enjoyment  of 
equal  rights.  The  cases  to  which  you  refer, 
were  such  as  involved  many  considerations, 
besides  the  mere  rights  of  conscience.  They 
involved  the  rights  of  property,  power,  and 
public  order.  It  was  not  so  much  the  preach- 
ing of  doctrine,  as  the  preaching  of  anarchy 
in  the  name  of  doctrine,  that  was  guarded 
against.  Civil  war,  bloodshed,  and  desola- 
tion followed  in  the  footsteps  of  those  fana- 
tics who  rose  in  Catholic  countries  to  dis- 
turb the  established  order  of  society.  This 
presents  a  case  very  different  from  any  thing 
recorded  in  the  crimson  annals  of  Protestant 
persecution — where  the  only  offence  was  the 
exercise  of  the  rights  of  conscience.  But, 
after  the  proofs  contained  in  my  last  letter 
on  the  general  subject,  and  considering  that 
you  are  compelled  to  admit  every  testimony 
therein  recorded,  your  returning  to  the  topic 
of  persecution  is  rather  unaccountable.  You 
insinuate  that  it  is  a  part  of  Catholic  doc- 
trine; whilst  the  very  documents  adduced 
by  yourself,  all  garbled  as  they  are,  prove  the 
contrary.  The  canon  of  Lateran  begins  "as 
the  blessed  Leo  saith  although  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  content  with  sacerdotal  judgment, 
does  not  exact  the  punishment  of  blood" — 
or  of  death,  &c.  "  Discipline"  is  not  doc- 
trine— and  "  sacerdotal  judgment,"  con- 
demns only  the  doctrine  of  heresy,  leaving 


13* 


the  heretic  himself  to  the  laws  of  the  state 
which  he  disturbs.  The  quakers  of  New- 
England  who  were  hanged  by  the  Presbyte- 
rians, were  guilty  of  no  such  offences.  The 
Priests  of  Ireland  who  were  hunted  down 
with  Presbyterian  bloodhounds,  as  Dr.  Tay- 
lor relates,  were  not  even  charged  with  any 
other  crime,  except  that  of  being  priests. 
The  fugitive  of  Geneva  whom  Calvin  had 
burned  to  death,  was  guilty  of  no  crime,  ex- 
cept that  of  following  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith  by  interpreting  the  Scripture  for  him- 
self. Luther  wished  the  blood  of  all  bish- 
ops, cardinals,  popes,  &tc,  that  he  might 
"wash  his  hands  in  it."  Knox  was  for  ex- 
terminating all  Catholics.  Henry  the  8th, 
Elizabeth,  and  Edward  VI.  persecuted  to 
death  for  the  crime  of  exercising  liberty  of 
conscience.  The  Episcopalians  of  Virginia 
persecuted  the  Presbyterians; — the  Catholics 
of  Maryland  protected  them,  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  all  their  religious  rights,  and  admit- 
ted them  to  equal  privileges  with  themselves 
in  the  civil  administration  of  the  colony.  The 
gratitude  of  the  Presbyterians  was  the  grati- 
tude of  the  serpent  that  stings  the  bosom 
which  has  fostered  it.  They  put  down  and 
persecuted  these  very  Catholics  as  soon  as  it 
was  in  their  power.  They  did  the  same  in 
England,  towards  the  Episcopalians  them- 
selves. John  Wesley  taught  that  not  only 
Protestants,  but  even  Mahomedans  and  Pa- 
gans are  bound  to  persecute  Roman  Catholics. 
And  yet  these  are  the  men  who  proclaimed 
that  every  one  had  the  right  to  read  the  Bible 
and  judge  for  himself!  These  are  the  saints, 
the  fathers,  the  apostles  of  Protestantism ! 
It  was  by  these  means  that  they  propagated 
the  radical  delusion  of  their  system,  for 
which  it  would  have  been  hard,  if  they  could 
not  invent,  at  least  a  good  name;  which 
they  did,  by  calling  it  the  religion  of  the 
"  Bible  alone."  You  did  well,  then,  to  say 
that  you  "condemn"  all  this,  that  "you  re- 
nounce it,"  that  "you  mourn  over  it:" — but 
until  your  tears  shall  have  washed  it  all 
away,  you  do  wrong  to  charge  any  denomi- 
nation with  the  crime  of  persecution.  The 
imputation,  therefore,  of  having  recourse  to 
physical  force,  in  order  to  "determine  dis- 
putes in  the  church,"  is  one  in  which  Pro- 
testants are  more  implicated  than  Catholics. 
"With  us,  it  was  adopted  as  an  antidote  to 
prevent  the  rise  of  heresy,  and  its  concomi- 
tant civil  disorders,  in  Catholic  states.  With 
you,  it  was  the  torture  applied  as  a  remedy, 
to  compel  heretics  to  embrace  the  opinions 
of  the  predominant  party,  in  the  state  for  the 
time  being.    With  you,  it  was  the  nominal 


right  of  every  man  to  read  the  Scripture, 
and  judge  for  himself— but  woe  to  that  man 
who  dared  to  exercise  this  right,  when  Presby- 
terians had  the  political  ascendancy  in  any 
country.  In  Ireland,  he  was  given  up  to 
bloodhounds,  in  England  to  the  scaffold,  in 
Holland  to  the  dungeon,  in  Geneva  to  the 
stake  and  faggot,  and  in  Boston  to  the  gal- 
lows. All  this  was  done  by  Presbyterians 
and  their  founder — and  yet,  you,  a  Presby- 
terian, talk  of  persecution  !  ! *  But  it  seems 
that  Presbyterians  have  become  quite  meek 
and  tolerant,  since  the  rod  of  political  pow- 
er has  been  wrested  from  their  hands,  and 
we  have  Mr.  Breckinridge  making  acts  of 
contrition  for  the  use  made  of  it — "he  con- 
demns it,  he  renounces  it,  he  mourns  over  it." 
It  is  wisdom,  says  the  proverb,  to  make  a 
virtue  of  necessity. 

Now  let  us  try  to  return  to  the  rule  of 
faith,  which,  if  I  may  judge  by  your  efforts  to 
evade  it,  you  seem  to  dread  as  cordially  as 
you  do  persecution  itself.  You  would  wish 
me  even  to  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ,  in 
order  that  you  might  have  an  opportunity  of 
proving  it  from  the  Scripture  alone.  But  I 
cannot  gratify  you,  by  acceding  to  this 
strange  proposal.  Ywu  may  break  a  lance 
with  any  of  your  Unitarian  or  Universalist 
brethren,  on  this  awful  question;  and  the 
more  so,  as  they  and  you  have  the.  same  rule 
of  faith;  viz.  your  right  of  private  judgment 
as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Bible.  But  beware 
of  the  consequences — for  I  can  assure  you 
that  the  Unitarian  will  bear  you  down  by  the 
logical  consequences  of  your  own  rule  of  faith 
— and  this  alone  ought  to  make  Protestants 
see  the  "  radical  delusion"  of  their  system. 

The  question  between  us,  is  touching  that 
"infallible  rule  of  faith  which  Christ  estab- 
lished, to  guide  us  in  matters  of  religion,  and 
to  determine  disputes  in  his  church."  Is  it 
the  Bible  alone,  interpreted  by  each  indi- 
vidual for  himself?  If  it  is  not,  then  it 
follows  that  the  Protestant  principle  is  fal- 
lacious. And  that  it  is  not,  I  think  has  been 
abundantly  established  in  the  progress  of 
these  letters.  1st.  Because  the  Bible  was 
not  completely  written,  until  after  many 
years  from  the  ascension  of  Christ  into  hea- 
ven— and  consequently  was  not  established 
by  him,  as  the  only  rule  of  faith.  2d.  Seve- 
ral books  of  the  Bible  were  not  universally 
received,  as  authentic  and  inspired,  for  some 
centuries  after,  and  therefore  the  Bible  was 
not,  and  could  not  be,  the  only  rule  of  faith 
by  which  the  first  Christians  were  guided. 
3d.  The  sects,  who,  in  those  ages  adopted 
the  Bible  alone  for  their  rule  of  faith,  were 


13s 


heretics,  acknowledged  and  condemned  as  such 
by  Protestants  themselves.  4th.  Because  the 
testimony  by  which  we  know  the  Bible  to  be 
what  it  is,  must  be  something  different  from 
the  book  itself.  Hence,  the  first  act  of  a 
Protestant's  faith,  (which  includes  every 
thing  else,)  is  founded  on  that  testimony; 
and  consequently  is  not  founded  on  the 
Bible  alone.  5th.  Because  even  after  we 
are  convinced  by  this  testimony,  the  Bible, 
all  inspired  as  it  is,  cannot  be  a  rule  of  faith, 
except  in  as  much  as  our  minds  are  success- 
ful in  evolving  Us  true  sense.  6th.  And  as 
the  Protestant  is  obliged  to  adopt  the  opi- 
nion, which  grows  up  in  his  mind,  as  to  the 
sense,  when  he  reads  the  Bible  or  hears  it 
read, — it  consequently  follows  that  this  opi- 
nion in  point  of  fact,  is  the  Protestant  rule 
of  faith — and  not  the  Bible  alone,  7th.  Be- 
cause the  Bible  contains  mysteries  for  the 
exercise  of  faith,  to  be  believed  as  facts  di- 
vinely revealed — but  when  reduced  to  the 
judgment  of  private  opinion,  they  cease  to  be 
objects  of  faith,  and  become  matters  of  spe- 
culation. 

These  are  the  conclusions  which  reason 
must  draw  from  the  facts  and  circumstances 
of  the  case.  To  these  rational  evidences 
may  be  added,  that  neither  Christ  nor  his 
Apostles  say,  in  any  part  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ings, that  the  Bible  alone  is  the  rule  of 
faith.  On  the  contrary,  they  command  us 
to  be  guided  by  the  church — "if  any  one  will 
not  hear  the  church  let  him  be  to  thee  as  a 
heathen  and  a  publican."  The  fathers  all 
agree  in  this  testimony,  as  I  have  showed  in 
a  variety  of  quotations  from  their  writings. 
And  it  is  an  historical  fact,  beyond  the 
reach  of  refutation,  that  no  Christians  ever 
professed  to  be  guided  by  the  Scripture 
alone,  as  their  only  rule  of  faith,  except 
the  Protestants  who  began  in  the  \6th  cen- 
tury, and  the  heretics  of  antiquity. 

What  has  been  the  character  of  your  an- 
swers to  all  these  arguments  of  reason,  reve- 
lation, and  history?  Why,  that  the  written 
word  of  God  was  completed  before  the  death 
of  the  last  Jlpostle — as  if  St.  John  banished 
to  the  Isle  of  Patmos,  or  dwelling  in  Ephe- 
stis,  could  be  a  rule  of  faith  for  all  the  pro- 
vinces of  the  empire!  And  then,  why  did 
not  the  "  infallible"  church  determine  the 
canon  of  Scripture  sooner  than  the  year  397? 
As  if  the  Scripture  alone  had  been  the  rule 
of  faith  even  in  the  church!  And  then,  gar- 
bled or  irrelevant  extracts  from  the  fathers — 
and  then  the  "  vicious  circle"  which  I  have 
solved  at  least  twice,  although  once  should 
have  been  enough.    And  then  the  Pope  call- 


ing himself  God — which  he  never  did.  And 
then  the  blessing  of  asses  in  Rome.  And 
then  the  Inquisition;  the  massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew;  Taylor's  dissuasive  from  Po- 
pery; Rome  in  the  19th  century,  &c.  &c. 
D<>  you  imagine,  Rev'd  Sir,  that  the  sincere 
Protestant  will  be  satisfied  with  these  crimi- 
nations, which,  whether  true  or  false,  have 
nothing  to  do  ivith  the  main  question  ?  Do 
you  suppose,  that  even  admitting  the  whole 
premises,  he  will  conclude  that  therefore, 
the  Bible  alone,  or  to  speak  more  correctly, 
the  opinion  which  he  may  happen  to  form  as 
to  the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  is  that  "in- 
fallible rule  of  faith  established  by  Christ 
to  guide  us  in  matters  of  religion,  and  to  de- 
termine disputes  in  his  church?"  If  you  do, 
you  pay  but  a  poor  compliment  to  his  un- 
derstanding. Do  you  suppose  that  a  prin- 
ciple which  gave  rise  to  all  the  disputes  that 
exist  among  Protestants  is  that/"  infallible 
principle"  appointed  by  Chnat  for  the  pur- 
pose of  "determining  disputes?"  Will  ha 
be  convinced  that  the  principle  by  which  Cal- 
vin and  Luther  rejected  several  books  of  the 
New  Testament — as  well  as  transubstantia- 
tion — by  which  Socinus,  rejected  the  Trinity, 
by  which  the  Protestants  of  France,  Germany, 
and  Geneva,  are  Christian  infidels,  denying 
the  divinity  of  the  Saviour  who  redeemed 
them — by  which  you  are  a  Presbyterian,  ano- 
ther a  Universalist,  a  third  a  Quaker,  a  fourth 
a  Swedenborgian,  a  fifth  an  Episcopalian,  a 
sixth  a  Lutheran,  &c,  will  he  be  convinced, 
I  say,  by  all  you  have  charged  upon  Catho- 
lics, that  such  a  principle,  is  the  infallible 
rule  of  faith  appointed  by  the  Son  of 
God?  But  no  matter,  the  delusion  goes  on. 
The  Bible  is  made  the  repository  of  all  the 
contradictory  doctrines  of  Protestantism — 
It  is  reported  to  be  as  plain  as  the  Holy 
Spirit  could  make  it — and  the  ministers  re- 
ceive large  salaries  and  comfortable  livings 
for  making  it  plainer  still. 

You  seem  to  be  frightened  at  the  condi- 
tion of  Protestant  Germany — and  call  upon 
me  to  show  that  the  "free  and  self-inter- 
preting use  of  the.  Bible  has  done  all  this 
evil."  It  is  not  the  use  of  the  Bible,  but  the 
use  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  that  has 
done  all  this  evil.  It  is  the  abuse  of  the 
Bible. 

I  have  repeatedly  protested  against  the 
disingenuousness  of  your  statements  in  which 
I  am  constantly  represented  as  arguing 
against  the  Bible — or  the  "  use  of  the  Bible." 
The  use  of  the  Bible  is  in  the  Catholic  church 
as  I  contend,  and  the  abuse  of  it  in  the  Pro- 


139 


testant  denominations.  But  I  am  surprised 
that  you  should  require  proof  of  a  matter  that 
is  so  plain  and  obvious.  The  Germans  were 
told  by  Luther  to  read  the  Scriptures  and 
judge  for  themselves.  They  have  done  so, 
and  ceased  to  be  Christians!  Was  it  simply 
by  reading  the  Scriptures  that  this  occurred? 
No  certainly.  But  because  reading  the 
Scriptures  according  to  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith,  they  were  obliged  to  make  their  private 
reason  the  standard  and  measure  of  their 
belief  in  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Bible 
As  you  require  proof  however  I  will  give  it  you. 
Robison  in  his  "•  Proofs  of  a  Conspiracy"  tells 
us,  speakingof  theLutheransand  Calvinists  of 
Germany, — "  The  Scriptures,  the  foundation 
of  our  faith,  were  examined  by  clergymen  of 
very  different  capacities,  dispositions,  and 
views,  till  by  explaining,  correcting,  allegori- 
sing, and  otherwise  twisting  the  bible, 
men's  minds  had  hardly  any  thing  to  rest  on 
as  a  doctrine  of  revealed  religion.  This  en- 
couraged others  to  go  farther,  and' to  say 
that  revelation  was  a  solecism,  as  plainly  per- 
ceived by  the  irreconcilable  differences  among 
those  enlighteners  of  the  public,  and  that  man 
had  nothing  to  trust  to  but  the  dictates  of 
natural  religion."  (p.  64.)  These  "  enlight- 
eners" are  following  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith  every  where;  and  every  where,  the 
same  causes  necessarily  existing,  will  be  suc- 
ceeded by  the  same  effects  as  in  Germa- 
ny. Look  at  the  congregations  that  have 
gone  over  to  Unitarianism  in  New  Eng- 
land at  the  beck  of  the  "enlighteners."  And 
all  this  by  the  use — not  of  the  Bible — but  of 
your  rule  of  faith. 

In  the  Catholic  church  notwithstanding  all 
that  Protestants  say  to  the  contrary,  we  read 
the  Scripture  as  the  inspired  written  word  of 
God — we  exercise  our  judgment, — and  ar- 
rive by  a  rational  process  of  investigation,  at 
the  proofs  of  our  doctrine.  But  we  do  not 
like  the  Protestant  readers,  take  upon  us  to 
become  "enlighteners  of  the  public,  by  ex- 
plaining, correcting,  allegorising,  and  other- 
wise twisting  the  Bible,"  according  to  the 
measure  of  individual  capacity  and  private 
opinion.  We  hold  that  the  Bible  means 
now,  what  it  meant  1500  years  ago — and  on 
points  of  doctrine,  we  interpret  it  according 
to  the  perpetual,  unbroken,  Catholic  public 
teaching  of  the  church.  The  consequence 
is  that  we  do  not  change  our  creed,  to  suit  the 
genius  of  any  country,  or  to  keep  pace  with 
the  improvements  of  any  age.  It  is  for  those 
who  acknowledge  their  religion  to  be  of  hu- 
man  origin,  to  improve  their  doctrines — and 
deny  their  tenets,  as  often  as  they  shall  have 


become  'offensive'  but  we  hold  our  doctrines 
to  be  divine,  and  consequently,  beyond  the 
reach  of  man's  improvement. 

Hence  our  doctrines  are  identically  the 
same  all  over  the  world — and  what  they  were 
when  first  preached  to  the  world — that  they 
are  now  and  that  they  will  be  until  the  con- 
summation of  time.  The  question,  therefore 
is  not  to  be  decided  according  to  the  arrange- 
ment of  terms  laid  down  in  a  recent  charge 
"  The  rule  of  faith," — which,  without  profes- 
sing to  be,  is  generally  regarded  as  a  prop  to 
the  weakness  of  your  arguments,  in  opposition 
to  my  reasoning,  on  the  same  subject.  This 
being  the  case,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  re- 
viewing it,  apart  from  this  controversy  in  a 
separate  publication,  in  the  course  of  a  few 
days. 

In  the  mean  time  before  I  close,  I  must 
allude  to  the  train  of  little  questions  which 
are  found  in  the  conclusion  of  your  last  let- 
ter. But  I  have  not  space  to  answer  them — 
for  with  all  the  indulgence  of  the  Editors,  I 
should  trespass  were  I  to  attempt  to  furnish 
you  with  instruction  as  well  as  argument. 
The  "  question"  you  asked  in  reference  to 
Bishop  Kendrick's  warning  "against  reading 
the  controversy,"  ought  to  have  convinced 
you  that  even  interrogatories  are  sometimes 
dangerous.  But  as  the  restrictions  of 
Catholic  states,  on  the  liberty  of  the 
press,  and  prohibited  books  seems  to  be 
a  great  hobby  in  all  your  letters; — it  may 
be  proper  for  me  to  say,  that  Catholic 
states,  like  Protestant  states,  manage  their 
national  affairs  pretty  much  as  they  please. 
When  Presbyterians,  however,  sat  at  the  helm, 
of  civil  government,  they  did  not  do  much 
better.  In  those  days  it  was  a  sin  to  print 
or  even  read  the  Episcopal  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  By  an  ordinance  of  the  Presby- 
terian parliament  dated  August  23d,  1645, 
"Any  person  using  the  book  of  Common 
Prayer,  forfeited,  for  the  first  offence  five 
pounds,  for  the  second  ten,  and  for  the  third 
suffered  imprisonment.  All  Common 
prayer  books  in  churches  or  chapels  were 
ordered  to  be  brought  to  the  Committee 
within  a  month,  under  the  forfeit  of  forty 
shillings  for  each  book."  (Rushworth  p.  207.) 
By  another  ordinance  passed  August  29. 
1654,  for  the  ejection  of  scandalous,  ignorant 
and  inefficient  ministers  and  schoolmasters, 
it  is  enacted  "that  such  ministers  and 
schoolmasters  shall  be,  accounted  scandalous, 
as  have  publicly  and  frequently  read  the  com- 
mon prayer  book,"  the  reading  of  which  was 
judged  by  this  ordinance  as  great  an  offence 


140 


as  DRUNKENNESS,  FORNICATION,  ADULTERY, 
PERJURY,  Or  BLASPHEMY. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

Jno.  Hughes. 

P.  S.  In  your  letter  dated  April  1833, 
you  say  in  reference  to  the  warning  against, 
reading  this  controversy — "I  did  not  proceed 
in  this  matter  without  a  responsible  name; 
and  even  then,  knowing  the  defects  of  tradi- 
tion, I  asked  it  as  a  question,  whether  my 
informant  was  mistaken,  and  left  it  open  for 
correction.  I  have  now  the  name  before  me, 
and  the  permission  to  make  it  public,  if  re- 
quired by  the  Bishop.  If  he  demand  it, 
therefore,  it  shall  be  given."  Now, 
Rev.  Sir,  I  call  on  you  to  redeem  your  pro- 
mise, thus  publicly  made.  The  Bishop  has 
"demanded  it,"  and  it  has  not  been  "  given;" 
— John  Burtt,  whose  name  is  appended  to 
nearly  half  a  column  of  special  pleading  on 
the  subject,  positively  asserts,  that  he  is  not 
your  "informant,"  and  consequently  I  call 
upon  you  to  redeem  your  public  pledge — 
provided  always,  it  is  not  a  lady,  "whom, 

for  convenience  sake,  you  might  call  M ." 

Poor  M !  She  could  not  distinguish  be- 
tween St.  Mary's  and  St.  John's,  the  one  in 
4th  street,  the  other  in  13th  !  She  could  not 
distinguish  between   the  dress  of  a  Bishop 


and  that  of  a  Priest,  although  Mr.  Burtt  tells 
us  she  "  had  been  educated  among  Roman 
Catholics."  She  could  not  distinguish  be- 
tween some  other  day.  and  the  17th  of  Feb- 
ruary, the  day  on  which  your  informant  "  in- 
sisted" that  the  "  warning  was  given" — and 
on  which  it  so  happens  that  Mr.  Hughes  did 
occupy  the  desk  of  St.   John's,  and  not  the 

"  Connecticut  Valley  Priest;''  whom  M 

supposed  to  be  a  bishop!  It  seems  the  Catho- 
lics in  educating  M did  not  furnish  her 

with  the  attributes  of  a  good  memory. 

And  poor  Mr.  Burtt!  He  heard  it  from 
"two  friends,"  who  had  been  told  by  "  one, 
who  was  present,  whose  ears  heard  it"  (ne- 
ver!) and  he  told  it  to — a  "mutual  friend," 
and  he  supposes,  for  "  he  never  inquired" 
that  it  was  "communicated  to  Mr.  B.''  Mr. 
Burtt,  therefore,  Rev.  Sir,  is  not  your  "infor- 
mant"— and  consequently  your  pledge  to 
give  the  name,  if  the  Bishop  demanded  it — 
as  he  has — is  still  unredeemed.  Let  this 
point  of  (Protestant)  "  oral  tradition,"  as 
Mr.  Burtt  terms  it,  be  cleared  up.  Is  this 
Mr.  Burtt  the  same  who  was  formerly  editor 
of  the  Presbyterian?  Heu  !  Quantum  muta- 
tus  ab  illo!  Were  it  not  for  his  signature  I 
never  should  suspect  him  of  being  the  author 
of  such  a  letter.  But  it  is  the  name  of  your 
"informant,"  or  the  retractation  of  the 
charge,  that  is  required.  J.  H. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   18 


ISaaBc  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  May  30th,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

Rev.  Sir, — It  was  remarked  by  the  great 
Robert  Hall  (whose  works  I  hope  you  will 
get  a  license  from  the  Committee  at  Rome 
to  read)  "  That  one  of  the  severest  trials  of 
human  virtue  is  the  trial  of  controversy." 
At  the  commencement  of  our  correspond- 
ence, refinement,  Christian  propriety,  and 
official  dignity,  were  pledged  as  the  graces 
which  should  guide  your  pen  and  adorn 
your  pages;  and  even  in  a  recent  communi- 
cation, you  have  told  me  that  you  could  not 
render  "railing  for  railing."  In  your  last  let- 
ter, if  never  before,  you  throw  aside  all  reserve, 
and  give  specimens,  to  the  life,  of  a  spirit 
and  temper  which  fairly  identify  you  with 
the  renowned  Ecclesiastical  bullies  of  New 
York,  who  are  now  expending  their  coarse 
and  vulgar  railleries,  against  the  Bible,  and 
the  friends  of  Christ;  "who  are  edifying  us 
much  without  intending  it;  and  have  the  ef- 
fect which  the  great  critic  of  antiquity  as- 
signs to  the  stage,  that  of  purifying  the 
heart  by  pity  and  terror."  In  this  service 
I  must  yield  the  palm  to  the  models  and 
representatives  of  the  "  Infallible  church;" 
and  concede  to  you,  without  reserve,  every 
advantage  which  such  superiority  can  con- 
fer. The  application  of  these  remarks  will 
be  promptly  made  even  by  the  most  cursory 
reader  of  your  last  letter. 

Your  "mock  heroic"  proposal  to  "meet 
me  before  the  General  Assembly"  is  unfor- 
tunately too  late,  since  that  body  adjourned 
on  the  27th  inst.  What  effect  the  expecta- 
tion of  meeting  the  distinguished  Secretary, 
who  lately  announced  to  us  "the  plenary 
indulgence  of  the  Pope,"  might  have  had  in 
delaying  their  adjournment,  I  cannot  say. 
Your  courage  was  not  equal  to  a  public  meet- 
ing six  months  ago,  or  the  whole  ground  of 
controversy  might  Ion*  since  have  been  tra- 
versed; and  if  the  meaning  of  the  latter 
member  of  the  sentence  be  that  you  will  so 
meet  me  now,  I  am  still  prepared  to  pursue 
the  discussion  in  that  way.  If  not,  then  I 
add  your  pledge  "to  convict  my  letters  of 
having  added,  and  omitted  words,  changed 


punctuation,  falsified  authorities,  &c,"  to 
the  list  of  things  which  we  have  referred, 
and  liefy  you  to  verify  your  slander,  or  to 
vindicate  yourself  by  one  single  proof,  for 
the  "insolence"  which  has  uttered  them. 

This  may  be  as  proper  as  any  other  place 
to  expose  by  way  of  contrast,  some  specimens 
of  your  many  misrepresentations. 

1st.  That  which  relates  to  our  Confession, 
being  on  file,  may  repose  until  we  can  give 
the  decision  of  the  referees  whom  you  have 
proposed. 

2d.  You  say  in  your  last  letter,  "  the  Ca- 
tholics of  Maryland  protected  them  (Pres- 
byterians) in  the  enjoyment  of  all  their  reli- 
gious rights;  and  admitted  them  to  equalprivi- 
leges  with  themselves  in  the  civil  administra- 
tion of  the  colony.  The  gratitude  of  the 
Presbyterians  was  the  gratitude  of  the  ser- 
pent that  stings  the  bosom  which  has  foster- 
ed it.  They  put  down  and  persecuted  these 
very  Catholics,  as  soon  as  it  was  in  their 
power."  Now  will  you  do  us  the  favour  to 
show  when  and  where  "the  Presbyterians 
put  down  and  persecuted  these  very  Catho- 
lics as  soon  as  it  was  in  their  power?"  I 
pronounce  it  an  utter  fabrication.  There  is 
not  even  the  semblance  otfact  or  truth  in  the 
statement.  And  let  me  asK,  was  it  in  the 
power  of  the  Catholics  of  Maryland,  accord- 
ing to  the  terms  of  the  original  charter,  to 
exterminate  or  persecute  Protestants,  if  they 
had  desired  it?  The  fact  of  their  having 
tolerated  Protestants  stands  forth  indeed  like 
a  solitary  green  spot  in  that  great  wilderness 
over  which  the  Papacy  has  spread  its  deso- 
lations, and  I  would  not  willingly  pluck 
the  only  jewel  from  the  bloody  brow  of  your 
church.  But  it  has  yet  to  be  shown  that 
they  had  the  power  to  persecute.  What  if 
Mr.  Hughes  should  boast  that  he  allows  Mr. 
Breckinridge  freely  to  publish  his  views, 
and  though  a  "heretic,"  to  "  live  and  move, 
and  have  his  being"  in  this  country?  Shall 
we  thank  him  for  that? 

Poor  Bellarmine,  whom  you  have  dismiss- 
ed with  your  magic  wand  to  the  Limbo  of 
"  opinions,"  because  he  was  too  honest  for 
our  latitude,  gives  us  a  very  candid  account 


142 


of  this  matter.  He  says  (Book  3.  chap.  23 
of  Laics.)  "  But  when  in  reference  to  He- 
retics, thieves  and  other  wicked  men,  there 
arises  this  question  in  particular,  "  shall 
they  be  exterminated?"  it  is  to  be  consid- 
ered according  to  the  meaning  of  our  Lord, 
whether  that  can  be  done  without  injury  to 
thegood;andif  that  be  possible,  they  are  with- 
out doubt  to  be  extirpated',  (sunt  procul  dubio 
extirpandi)  but  if  that  be  not  possible,  either 
because  they  are  not  sufficiently  known,  and 
then  there  would  be  danger  of  punishing  the 
innocent  instead  of  the  guilty:  or  because 
they  are  stronger  than  ourselves,  and  there 
be  danger  lest  if  we  make  a  war  upon  them, 
more  of  our  people  than  of  theirs  should  be 
slain,  then  we  must  keep  quiet  (tunc  quies- 
cendum  est). 

3d.  You  say  "the  Quakers  of  New  Eng- 
land were  hanged  by  the  Presbyterians.'' 
This  also,  is,  without  qualification,  a  mis- 
statement. There  was  a  time  when  Con- 
gregatiotialists  in  some  parts  of  New  Eng- 
land did  persecute  that  now  amiable  people. 
But  I  would  ask,  upon  what  authority  you 
have  ventured  to  utter  so  unfounded  a  charge 
against  us;  and  since  you  will  not  permit 
me  to  excuse  your  misrepresentations  on 
the  ground  of  ignorance,  to  what  account 
shall  the  public  set  down  this  misstatement? 

4th.    In   two  successive  letters  yon  have 
attacked    the   character    of    the    celebrated 
John  Wesley.     In  the  first  you   say  (Letter 
No.    15)    "Even   the    meek   John    Wesley 
as  late  as  the  year   1780,    proclaimed    that 
they  (Catholics)  ought   not   to  be  tolerated 
by    any    government,   Protestant,   Moham- 
medan, or  Pagan.''     You  repeat  this  charge 
in  your  last  letter.     While  I  leave  to  others, 
better  acquainted  with  his  history  and  opi- 
nions than  myself,  such  a  defence  as  may 
bethought  necessary,  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty 
here  briefly  to  expose  a  flagrant  example  of 
that  unworthy  garbling  with  which,  in  anoth- 
er case,  you  have  ventured  to  charge  me.  In 
the  very  letter,  and  partly  in  the  very  para- 
graph from  which  you  take  the  above   sen- 
tence, there  is  a  distinct  disclaimer  of  the  spirit 
of  persecution.  Let  us  quote  it:  "  With  per- 
secution I  have  nothing  to  do;  I  persecute 
no  man  for  his  religious  principles.  Let  there 
be  as  boundless  a  freedom  in  religion  as  any 
man,  can  conceive.     But  this  does  not  touch 
the  point;  I  will  set   religion  true  or  false 
out  of  the  question.     Yet  I  insist  upon   it 
that   no  government   not    Roman   Catholic 
ought  to  tolerate   men  of  the   Roman   Ca- 
tholic  persuasion.     I  prove  this  by  a  plain 
argument,  let  him  answer  it  that  can:  that 


no  Roman  Catholic  does,   or  can  give  se- 
curity for  his  allegiance  or  peaceable  beha- 
viour  I  prove  thus:  It  is  a  Roman  Catholic 
maxim   established  not  by  private   men,  but 
by  a  public  council,  that  '  no  faith  is  to  be 
kept  with    heretics.''     This    has  been  openly 
avoived  by  the  Council   of  Constance;  but  it 
never  was  openly  disclaimed.      Whether  pri- 
vate persons  avow  or  disavow  it,  it  is  a  fixed 
maxim  of  the  church  of  Rome.     But  as  Ung 
as  it  is  so,  nothing  can  be  mare  plain  than 
that  the  members  of  that  church,  can  give  no 
reasonable  security  to   any  government,   fo 
their    allegiance    or    peaceable    behaviour. 
(Here    follow     the    words   quoted    by   Mr. 
Hughes)   Therefore  they  ought  not  to  be  tole- 
rated by   any  government,  Protestant,   Ma- 
hometan, or  Pagan.  (The  author   proceeds.) 
You  may  say,   '  nay  but  they   will  take  an 
oath    of  allegiance.'      True,    five    hundred 
oaths;  but  the  maxim,  *  no  faith,  is  to  be  kept 
with   heretics'  sweeps   them  all    away  as  a 
spider's  web.   So  that  still,  no  governors,  that 
are   not  Roman    Catholics,    can    have   any 
security  of  their  allegiance.     The   power  of 
granting  pardons  for  all  sins,  past,   present 
and    to   come  is,   and   has  been     for  many 
centuries    one   branch   of    his    (the  Pope's) 
spiritual  power.   But  those  who  acknowledge 
him  to  have  this  spiritual   power  can  give  no 
security  for  their  allegiance,    since    they  be- 
lieve the  Pope  can  pardon  rebellions,  high 
treasons,  and  all  other  sins  whatever.     The 
power  of  dispensing  with  any  promise,  oath, 
or  vow  is  another  branch  of  the  spiritual  pow- 
er of  the  Pope.      All  who  acknowledge  his 
spiritual  power  must  acknowledge  this.   But 
whoever  acknowledges  the  dispensing  power 
of  the  Pope,   can  give  no  security  for  his  al- 
legiance to  any  government.     Nay,  not  only 
the  Pope,  but  even  a  Priest  has  the  power  to 
pardon  sins.     This  is  an  essential  doctrine 
of  the  church  of  Rome,  but  they  that  acknow- 
ledge this  cannot  possibly  give  any  security 
for   their    allegiance    to    any     government. 
Oaths  are  no  security  at  all,  for  the  Priest  can 
pardon  both  perjury  and  high  treason.     Set- 
ting, then,  religion  aside,  it  is  plain  that  upon 
principles  of  reason,   no  government  ought 
to  tolerate  men  who  cannot  give  any  security 
to  that  government  for  their  allegiance  and 

peaceable  behaviour Would  I  wish,  then 

the  Roman  Catholics  to  be  persecuted?  I 
never  said  or  hinted  any  such  thing.  I  ab- 
hor the  thought;  it  is  foreign  from  all  1  have 
preached  and  wrote  these  fifty  years.  But 
I  would  wish  the  Romanists  in  England,  (I 
had  no  others  in  view)  to  be  treated  with  the 
same  lenitj  that  they  have  been  these  sixty 


143 


years;  to  be  allowed  both  civil  and  religious 
liberty;  but  not  permitted  to  undermine 
ours."  (See  Wesley's  works  Vol.  5.  p.  817, 
818.  826.) 

From  these  extracts  it  is  palpable  to  every 
honest  mind   that  gross  injustice   has  been 
done  to  Mr.  Wesley.     While  he  disclaims 
persecution  on  the  one  hand,  he  proves  on 
the  other,  that  no  Roman  Catholic,  if  con- 
sistent, can  give  reasonable  security  to   any 
governor  or  government,  not  Roman  Catholic, 
of  his  allegiance  and  peaceable  behaviour  ! 
And  now  it  instead  ot  scandalizing  his  memo- 
ry, you  will  answer  his  argument,  you  will 
do  a  good  service  to   "  your  lord  the  Pope." 
5th.  You  say  "  In  our  late  interview  I  com- 
pelled   you   to    acknowledge    that   you    had 
garbled  the  extract  from  the  4th  Council  of 
Lateran,  by  leaving  out   whole  sentences.'' 
I  am  constrained  to  say  that  it  is  absolutely 
and  wholly  a  gratuitous  misrepresentation — 
and  I  appeal  in  proof  to  the  gentlemen  who 
were  present.     I  told  you,  as  is  the  fact,  that 
I  gave  an  abstract  or  continued  sense  of  the 
whole  passage;  that  it  was  simply  for  want  of 
room  I  gave  no  more;  that  what  was  omit- 
ted made  nothing/or  you,   nor  against  me. 
And   now   I   challenge  you   to  take  up  that 
passage,  and  show  that  I  have  left  out  one 
line  or  one  word  which  will  at  all  affect  the 
sense  of  the  decree.     And   I   farther   chal- 
lenge you  to  defend  that  passage — which  by 
the  authority    of  a  general   Council   dooms 
heretics  to  destruction — rewards  those   who 
aid  in  their  extermination — excommunicates 
those   who   received,   defended,   or  favoured 
them — orders    the  princes  and  rulers  of  the 
nations  to  purge  their  land  of  heretical  filth 
— absolves  their  subjects  (here  see  the  force 
of  Wesley's  argument)  from  their  allegiance 
if  the  princes  refuse;  and  gives  the  lands  of 
the  heretics  to  the  pious  papists  who  slaugh- 
tered or   expelled   them!      And  yet,  gentle 
reader,  this  is  the  Priest,  who  says  this  was 
only  a  "/eu<2a/"  council : — and  this  the  man 
who  from  several   letters  and  many  pages  of 
WTesley's  writings,  took  out  of  its  connexion 
one    sentence  omitting   the  disclaimers   and 
explanations  which  looked  him   directly  in 
the  face! 

6th.  You  charge  me  as  follows:  "It  seems 
you  cannot  give  even  the  title  of  a  chapter 
in  a  book,  without  falsifying  it.  Bellar- 
mine's  chapter  is  headed — Posse  haereticos 
ab  ecclesia  damnatos,  temporalibus  poenis, 
et.etiam  morte  mulctari.  Now  every  school- 
boy knows  that  this  merely  states,  that 
Heretics  condemned  by  the  church,  may  be 
punished  with  temporal  penalties,  and  even 


death.     And  yet  your  version  of  it  in  your 
last  letter  placing  it  in  italics,  and  between 
inverted  commas,  is,  that '  it  was  the  duty  of 
the   church    to  burn  heretics.'  ''     And  is  it 
possible  that  you   can  so  presume  upon  the 
ignorance    of  your    readers   when   the   very 
first  sentence  in   the   chapter  (already  cited 
at  large  by  me  in  letter  No.  14)  thus  begins: 
Nos  igitur   breviter    ostendemus    haeretieos 
incorrigibiles  ac  prresertim  relapsos,  posse  ac 
debere  ab  ecclesia  rejici  et  a  secularibus  po- 
testatibus,    temporalibus    poenis    atque    ipsa 
etiam    morte  mulctari."     "We  will    briefly 
show  that  the  church  has  the  power,  and  it  is 
her  duty,  to   cast   off  incorrigible  heretics, 
especially  those  who  have  relapsed,  and  that 
the   secular  power  ought  to  inflict  on  such 
temporal   punishments,  and   even  death    it- 
self."    Here  is  both  "  posse"  and  "  debere:" 
will  you  say  that  "debere''  means  only  "may 
be?"     Does  it   not  convey  the  full  force  of 
the  word  duty  or  "  ought  to  be?''     Really 
such   disingenuous  cavils  would  be  beneath 
the  simple  dignity  of  a  manly  "schoolboy!" 
7.    In  your  letter  No.   15  you  had  evaded 
the  force  of  many  extracts  from  your  stand- 
ard   writers  by  the  sweeping  specific   that 
they  expressed  only  their  "opinions,"  and  you 
called  for  Ecclesiastical  authority.   I  proceed- 
ed accordingly  to  produce  several  specimens. 
For  example,  I  adduced  Bellarmine's  refer- 
ence to  the  Council  of  Constance:  (Mark  it,) 
not  his  opinion,  but  a  fact;  viz.  he  says  that 
the  Council  of  Constance  condemned  the  senti- 
ments of  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague, 
and  handed  them  over  to  the  civil  power;  and 
they  were  burned. "     As   you   say   not   one 
word  in  reply,  are  we  to  hold  you  as  acknow- 
ledging this  fact?     If  not,  what  is  your  re- 
ply?    Again,  the  same  author  says  ''that  the 
laws  of  the    Church  decree  that  incorrigible 
heretics  should  thus  be  dealt  with,  and  that 
an  almost  infinite  number    of  heretics  were 
burned  by  the  Church,  as  the  Donatists,  the 
Manicheans,    and    Albigenses."       Do    you 
deny  it?     And  if  you  did,  shall  we  believe 
Jiim   or  you  ?     I  spread    out  to   your   view 
also  the    famous   Bull  of   Innocent  the  8th 
against  the  poor  peeled  and  butchered  Wal- 
denses.      And  how  do  you  meet  it?     Do  you 
deny  it?     No,  you  dare  not!     Do  you   at- 
tempt  to    explain    it?      No,    you     cannot/ 
What  then  is  your  answer?     "Pope  Inno- 
cent VIII.  was  elected  in   the  year  1484 — 
and  it  is  not  usual  with  our  Popes   to  issue 
hu^te -seven  yeals  before  their  election;  such 
bull*  come  from  a"tiother  quarter."     That  .-is, 
there  is  a  mistake  of  ten  years   in   stating 
the  date  of  the  bull!     But  will   you  deny 


144 


that  there  was  such  a  bull  ?  That  it 
was  issued  in  1487  instead  of  1477:  that  it 
enjoined  in  the  name  of  the  Pope,  and  the 
name,  of  the  Church,  on  all  the  Arch-Bishops 
and  Bishops — and  all  the  faithful  in  virtue, 
of  holy  obedience — to  exterminate  heretics  by 
arms — and  that  it  gave  to  the  crusaders  a  ple- 
nary indulgence,  and  the  remission  of  all  their 
sins  once  in  their  lives  and  at  death?  Will  you 
deny  this?  Can  you  explain  it?  Is  it  not  ac- 
cording to  your  call,  just  such  "a document  in 
proof  of  my  charge"  as  you  have  defied  me  to 
"show"  you? — If  you  have  any  doubts  on 
this  subject,  I  refer  you  to  Baronii  An- 
nates, Vol.  XIX.  page  386.  section  £5th. 

To  these  authorities  I  subjoined  an  ex- 
tract from  the  decree  of  the  3d.  Lateran 
Council,  which  in  the  most  ample  and  awful 
form  confirms  the  proofs  that  heretics  with- 
out number  have  been  exterminated  by  the 
authority  of  General  Councils.  You  at- 
tempt no  reply  to  the  stubborn  facts  ad- 
duced, for  you  well  know  that  none  could  be 
given;  but  as  usual  you  descend  to  the 
Jesuit's  last  resort,  personal  abuse.  You 
charge  me  with  suppressing  a  part  of  this 
decree  which  materially  affects  the  sense  of 
the  whole.  This  I  am  constrained,  in  self- 
defence,  to  say  is  wholly  false.  It  would 
fill  a  folio  volume  to  publish  at  large,  the 
multifarious  and  abominable  documents  from 
which  the  Protestant  is  called  to  draw  the 
evidences  of  your  church's  corruption  and 
guilt.  Covered  up  as  they  are  in  an  un- 
known tongue,  and  carefully  withheld  in 
musty  tomes  and  hidden  recesses  from  the 
public  eye,  they  must  be  dragged,  like  male- 
factors, to  the  light;  and  they  come  forth 
muttering  anathemas,  and  giving  out  strange 
sounds  of  wrath.  When  1  adduce  them  in 
evidence,  it  is  always  in  reference  to  some 
leading  topic;  and  it  is  my  constant  study 
in  every  case  to  give  the  true  sense,  and  con- 
nected meaning  of  the  passage  in  hand.  Of 
this  every  reader  must  be  sensible,  who  has 
impartially,  and  intelligently  examined  my 
letters.  (My  object  in  this  case,  was  to 
prove  that  General  Councils  decreed  the 
destruction  of  heretics;  and  the  extracts 
which  I  furnished,  proved  this  without 
changing  the  meaning,  or  weakening  the 
force  of  a  single  word  of  the  passage.  Fa- 
ber  quotes  just  as  I  have  done ;  Baronius 
your  great  annalist  himself  does  not  give 
the  decrees  in  continuity;  -Caranza  with 
filial  care  omits  the  whole  ,7  a'nd  eveji  Tf^f 
HtTg+res-HuaVes  out  several  sentences-  to- 
ward  the  close,  which  go  to  strengthen  my 
statement.     For  example  this:  it  is  enjoined 


that   if  any  should  presume  to  molest  the 
crusaders  they  should  be   excommunicated ; 
and  if  Bishops  or  priests  refuse  to  oppose 
themselves    decidedly    to    the   heretics    theyj 
should  be  deprived  of  their  offices. 

But  in  the  next  place  I  ask  what  do  the 
omitted  passages  prove?  The  first  is  this, 
"  But  if  they  die  in  this  sin  let  them  not  receive 
Christian  burial,  and  let  no  offering  be  made 
for  them  under  pretence  of  any  privilege 
granted  by  us,  or  any  other  pretext  what- 
ever." How,  I  ask,  does  this  passage  help 
your  cause?  Is  it  not  a  still  farther  illustra- 
tion of  the  fact  I  am  proving?  Does  it  not 
show  that  the  Holy  Council  would  not  let 
the  poor  heretics  rest  even  in  the  grave, 
where  the  most  relentless  laws  of  human 
warfare  cease  to  persecute?  Does  it  not 
further  show  that  the  Holy  Council  super- 
added the  pains  of  Hell,  to  murder,  and  to 
the  refusal  of  "Christian  burial?"  "  I*et 
no  offering  be  made  for  them."  That  is,  let 
the  pains  of  Hell  press  them;  let  no  sacri- 
fice be  made  for  them;  no  oblation! 

The  other  passage  with  whose  exclusion 
you  find  fault,  is  as  follows:  "As  to  the 
Brabantians,  Navarrii,  Rasculi,  Coterelli, 
and  Iriaverdimii,  who  exercise  such  cruelty 
towards  the  Christians,  that  they  pay  no 
respect  to  churches  or  monasteries,  spare 
neither  widows,  nor  virgins,  neither  old  nor 
young,  neither  sex  nor  age,  but  after  the 
manner  of  the  Pagans  destroy  and  desolate 
every  thing,  we,  in  like  manner,  decree  that  such 
persons  as  shall  protect,  or  retain,  or  encour- 
age them,  in, districts  in  winch  they  commit 
these 'excesses,  be  publicly  denounced  in  the 
churches  on  Sundays  and  festival  days,  and 
that  they  be  considered  as  bound  by  the 
same  censure  and  penalty  as  the  aforesaid 
heretics,  and  be  excluded  from  the  commu- 
nion of  the  church,  until  they  shall  have  ab- 
jured that  pestiferous  consociation  and  here- 
sy. But  let  all  persons  who  are  implicated 
with  them  in  any  crime,  (alluding  to  their 
vassals)  know  that  they  are  released  from 
the  obligation  of  fealty,  homage,  and  subjec- 
tion to  them,  so  long  as  they  continue  in  so 
great  iniquity."  Now  this  passage  intro- 
duces another  people  besides  those  mention- 
ed above,  and  charges  them  with  other 
crimes;  and  yet  all  are  comprehended  in 
the  same  sweeping  dispensation  of  death? 
Does  this  make  for  your  cause? 

The  grave  Council  were  not  very  special- 
ly scrupulous  about  verity,  though  "infallible." 
But  suppose  it  all  true,  to  what  does  it 
amount?  Why  to  this, these  heretics  weee  a 

VERY  WICKED  MURDEROUS  PEOPLE;  THEREFORE 


yv 


145 


THE  COUNCIL  HAD  A  RIGHT  TO  EXTERMINATE 

them!     That  this  is  what  you  mean  is  evi- 
dent because  you  immediately  add  "I  won- 
^oeT  whether  men  of  such  a  stamp  would  not 
^  be  reduced  to  the  penitentiary,  if  they  com- 
mitted   such   crimes   in    our  day  and  in  our 
\    country?"     But   who  shall    reduce   them   to 
Vthe  penitentiary?  Mr.  Hughes  owns  that  the 
L   Council  decreed  their  destruction  and  pleads 
^that  they  deserved  to  die!    Then  Mr.  Hughes, 
while  trying  to  "correct  we,"  acknowledges 
that  where  men  deserve  "to  be  reduced  to 
the    penitentiary,"  the    church  may  do    it! 
From  his  own  showing  therefore,  and  by  the 
"  omitted^   passages   it   is  avowed  that  the 
church  of  Rome  has  the  right  in  certain  cases 
to   destroy   Heretics!     Again,   Mr.   Hughes 
shows  by  the  "omitted''  passage  that  in  cer- 
tain cases  vassals  may  be  released,  by  the 
church  from    their    obligation    of  fealty, 
homage,  and  subjection,  to  their  rulers.  (See 
again  Wesley's  argument  in  this  connexion.) 
Besides  in  the  passages  not  disputed,  this  said 
Council,  (not  the  civil  power  but  the  church 
of  Rome  in  Council)  decreed  these  Heretics 
to   "slavery.''     Tell    me  then    Mr.  Hughes, 

"  ARE  LIFE,  LIBERTY,  AND  THE  PURSUIT  OF 
HAPPINESS    UNALIENABLE    RIGHTS?"       So    SayS 

our  memorable  Declaration  of  Independence. 
Again:  thisdecree  inhibits allivho  ivillnot take 
up  arms  against  said  Heretics  from  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.  Now  what  has  the 
church  of  Christ  to  do  with  making  war 
and  causing  men  to  take  up  arms?  Will  you 
tell  me?  Again;  this  decree  of  the  church  of 
Rome  "promises  remission  of  sins"  for  tak- 
ing up  arms.  Strange  wages  for  the  soldier, 
even  the  price  of  blood!  Will  you  then  give 
up  the  whole  matter,  or  else  explain  these  de- 
crees, and  bulls?  How  long  shall  an  aston- 
ished community  wait,  and  for  argument  re- 
ceive scandal;  for  reasoning,  passion;  for 
facts,  charges  of  falsehood?  Is  it  any  answer 
to  arguments  from  the  bull  of  Innocent  8th, 
to  say,  it  was  issued  in  1487  and  not  in  1477? 
Is  it  any  explanation  of  the  decree  ordering 
the  murder  of  millions  of  Heretics,  to  say 
they  deserved  to  be  destroyed,  and  that  Mr. 
Breckinridge  omittedthe  passages  \\h\c\\prov- 
ed  that  they  deserved  it?  Tell  me  then  has 
the  church  the  right  to  command  or  cause  any 
man  however  wicked  to  be  put  to  death? 
This  is  the  question.  I  have  proved  from 
bulls  and  decrees  that  she  has  commanded 
and  caused  millions  to  be  put  to  death  (and 
most  of  them  innocent.)  Now  why  did  she 
do  it?  Can  you  defend  it?  Can  you  ex- 
plain it?  Can  you  shun  it?  Can  you  meet  it? 


Yet  this  is  your  infallible  rule  of  faith;  and 
this  your  way  to  save  the  world! 

The  result  of  all  our  inquiries  is  this,  that 
the  church  of  Rome  is  upon  a  principle, 
avowedly  in  her  standards,  a  persecuting 
church.  If  Mr.  Hughes  denies  it,  he  con- 
tradicts public  documents;  if  he  disclaims, 
and  denounces  it,  he  gives  up  the  infallibility 
of  his  church.  Protestants  have  persecuted 
also;  but  with  this  difference:  1.  It  has  been 
in  the  ratio  of  a  thousand  to  one.  2.  They 
did  it  in  spite  of  their  system,  not  according 
to  it,  and  as  a  part  of  it;  and  they  neither 
deny  it  or  defend  it.  Having  disposed  of 
these  indefensible  Bulls,  Decrees,  &c,  let 
us  see  for  a  moment  what  you  have  done,  or 
rather  omitted  in  your  last  letter  on  the  rule 
of  faith,  which  of  late  days  you  scarce  y 
touch.  1.  What  have  you  said  to  explain 
your  dilemma,  which  makes  you  justify 
Christ's  crucifixion,  or  give  up  infallibility? 
Not  a  word.  2.  What  have  you  said  in  an- 
swer t»  my  threefold  exposure  of  the  doc- 
trine of  infallibility,  in  my  last  letter?  Not  a 
word.  You  seem  afraid  to  touch  again  even 
the  rim  of  one  of  your  circulating  syllogisms. 
3.  What  have  have  you  said  of  "the  Apo- 
cryphal Books?"  Not  a  word.  4.  What 
have  you  said  of  "Unwritten  Traditions?'' 
Not  a  word,  except  to  allude  to  the  powerful 
essay  of  Bishop  Onderdonk.  On  this  topic 
your  reserve,  though  often  called  on  by  me, 
has  left  for  his  able  pen  an  ample  field.  Your 
"  answer"  to  his  "  charge  on  the  rule  of 
faith,"  (like  those  gigantic  arguments  pledg- 
ed in  your  letter  No.  2  against  me)  is  no 
doubt  destined  to  live  and  die,  in  the  land  of 
promise.  5.  "  The  unanimous  consent  of 
the  Fathers.'''  Where  is  it?  It  is  a  part  of 
your  rule  of  faith!  But  where  is  it?  In  vain 
have  I  proved  it  an  impossibility,  an  absurdi- 
ty, &c.  Not  a  word  from  you  on  this  subject, 
except  that  when  I  quote  the  "  Fathers" 
against  you,  you  say  I  have  left  the  Scrip* 
tures  as  a  rule  of  faith,  and  appeal  to  the 
Fathers!  6.  I  offered  to  discuss  with  you, 
the  evidence  of  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord, 
from  the  word  of  God.  Though  you  had  said 
this  doctrine  could  not  be  proved  from  the 
Bible  alone;  yet  you  entirely  decline  to 
meet  me  on  this  subject.  7.  I  put  four 
questions  to  you  drawn  from  the  "docu- 
ments'' of  your  church!  You  call  them 
';  little  questions:"  yet  small  as  they  are 
you  do  not  attempt  an  answer.  Why  silent? 
Is  it  so  then,  that  your  people  are  prohibit- 
ed from  hearing  Protestants  preach?  Why 
then  such  outcry  about  the  warning  against 
the  reading  of  the  controversy?    Is  it  so,  that 


146 


X 


gour  people  are  prohibited  the  perusal  of 
rotius,  Locke,  Milton,  Saurin,  Young,  &c. ! 
Where  then,  are  the  rights  of  conscience? 
Is  not  this  despotism?  Does  it  not  show 
Rome  an  enemy  to  knowledge?  Is  not  a 
license  necessary  to  read  them,  and  to  read 
all  "  controversies"  with  heretics  ?  And 
is  this  the  reason  that  you  help  out  in  the 
pulpit  the  imbecilities  of  your  appeals  from 
the  press,  and  give  the  substance  of  the 
Protestant's  arguments  on  the  Sabbath  to 
those  who  may  not  without  license  dare  to 
read  them  in  the  week?  And  is  it  true  that 
the  Bible  is  chained  to  the  altar,  and  none 
can  wilhput  permission,  read  it  ?  And  does 
your  rule  of  faith  teach  that  God's  word  will 
injure  and  mislead  his  creatures? 

8.  Long,  long  ago,  I  brought  to  view  the  fact 
that  the  Pope  had  ordered  Catholic  books  to 
be  altered,  and  amended,-  and  that  even  the 
Fathers  had  been  by  authority  "expurg- 
ated" to  make  them  speak  the  language  of 
the  church.  Have  you  denied  it?  Have  you 
explained  it? 

9.  I  proved  from  the  Pope's  Encyclical  let- 
ter, lately  issued,  that  he  had  pronounced 
the  liberty  of  the  press  "that  fatal  license 

OF  WHICH  WE  CANNOT    ENTERTAIN    TOO  MUCH 

horror:"  and  that  he  called  "liberty  of 

CONSCIENCE,  AN  ABSURD  AMD  DANGEROUS 
MAXIM,  OR  RATHER  THE  RAVING  OF  DELI- 
RIUM." You  say  in  your  last  letter,  as  to 
restrictions  on  the  press,  and  on  books, 
"  Catholic  States,  like  Protestant  States, 
manage  their  own  affairs  pretty  much  as  they 
please."  But  the  Pope's  letter,  as  the  name 
imports,  is  not  for  Italy  or  Spain,  but  for  the 
whole  church  every  where,— for  the  secretary 
who  announced  the  Pope's  jubilee;  and  from 
the  head  of  the  church!  Does  the  secretary 
adopt  the  Pope's  principles  ?  or  are  these 
only  "  opinions''''  of  the  Pope?  Do  you  think 
with  a  western  Prelate  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  that  "as  long  as  the  Republican  Gov- 
ernment (in  this  country)  shall  subsist,"  the 
labours  of  the  missionaries  among  the  west- 
ern tribes  of  Indians  are  almost  fruitless? 
Or  do  you  think  with  Bishop  England,  who 
said  "  The  Americans  are  loud  in  their*re- 
...robation  of  your  servile  aristocracy  (in  Ire- 
land) who  would  degrade  religion  by  placing 
its  concerns  under  the  controul  of  a  king's 
minister;  and  couldyour  aristocratsand  place- 
hunters  view  the  state  of  Catholicity  here, 
they  would  inveigh  against  the  Democrats 
who  would  degrade  religion  by  placing  its  con- 
cerns under  the  controul  of  a  mob;  and  I  am 
perfectly  convinced  both  are  right.  In  both 
cases  the  principle  is  exactly  the  same — the 


mode  of  carrying  it  into  operation  is  different." 
10.   The  3d  edition,  (in  rather  an  emaciated 
condition)  of  your  ten  heads,  though  twice  v 
replied  to,  appears  in  your  last  letter.     All    1 
I  have  to  say  now  is  this, — that,  throughout 
your  attempts  at  discussion,  you  have  called 
" private  interpretation"   our  rule  of  faith. 
The  Bible  is  our  infallible  rule  of  faith.     The 
Bible  is  the  rule  ;  interpretation  is  the  wse> 
of  the  rule.     If  men  pervert  it,  that  is  not 
the  rule  of  faith.     If  men  abuse  the  light  of 
the  sun  to   evil  deeds,  still  it  is  the  sun.     If 
one  takes  a  truerule  and  gives  a.  false  measure, 
is  it  the  fault  of  the  rule?     While  the  Bible 
is  our  rule,  I  have  shown  that  your  rule  is  (1 .) 
the  Bible,  (2.)  the  Apocrypha,  (3.)  "  Unwrit- 
ten Traditions,''  (4.)  the  unanimous  consent 
of  the  fathers,  (5.)  interpreted  by  an  infalli- 
ble  judge,    who    has  not  spoken  for  near 
three  hundred  years;  and  whose  writings  and 
interpretations  make  a  library  in  a  dead  lan- 
guage.     And  now   when   Mr.    Hughes  as- 
cends the  desk  with  these  ponderous  tomes, 
he  has  our  Bible,  to  interpret  privately,  that 
is,  to  do  it  himself — and  all  the  difficulties 
of    the     Protestants   attend     him    too — for 
he  is  fallible:  and  he  has  also  the  Apocry- 
pha,    "unwritten     traditions"    (if    he    can 
find  them)  ''the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers,"  and  the  immense  volumes   of  de- 
crees, canons,  bulls,  the  missal  and  breviary, 
to  interpret  and  preach.     This  Mr.  Hughes 
owns  in   the  last  letter,  where  he   says  "  we 
exercise  our  judgment,  and  arrive  by  a  ra- 
tional process  of  investigation  at  the  proof  of 
our  doctrines."     And  now  when  Dr.  White, 
or  Dr.   Brantly,  or   Dr.  Miller  ascends  the 
pulpit   with  the  pure  unincumbered   Bible, 
are  they  not  as  likely  to  get  at  the   truth  as 
Mr.  Hughes?     Either  Mr.  Hughes  is  infalli- 
ble, which  I   think,  now,  no  body  will   ima- 
gine, or  else  these  Protestant  preachers,  are, 
to  say  the  least,  as  likely  as  he,  to  be  safe 
instructors  of  the  people.     In  a  word  there 
is  unanswerable  proof  that  if  your  Church  has 
infallibility  it  is  perfectly  useless;  and  cannot 
be   applied    unless   every  priest   and  every 
Prelate   be  personally   infallible.     But  your 
infallibility  is  a  figment;    and  your  rule  of 
faith  was  never  established  by  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ. 

But  before  I  close  this  letter  I  wish  in 
preparation  for  the  discussion  of  other  topics, 
briefly  to  show  the  necessity  of  a  Reformation 
in  ;  the  Church  of  Rome  at  the  time  when 
hiither  appeared,  as  well  as  for  ages  before. 
As  my  remaining  space  is  small,  and  the 
r'ources  of  information  are  almost  without 
limit,  I  will  here  confine  myself  to  one  or 


147 


two  authorities.  Take  for  example,  the  let- 
ter written  by  four  Cardinals  antl  four  other 
Prelates,  to  the  Pope,  by  his  order  on  the 
subject  of  reform  in  the  church.  (As  this 
letter  extends  to  many  pages,  you  will  not 
charge  me  with  garbling  if  I  give  only  ex- 
tracts. The  Catholic  Herald,  however,  may 
liave  the  whole  of  it  for  publication.)  They 
tell  his  Holiness  "  of  abuses  and  most  griev- 
ous distempers,  wherewith  the  church  of 
God,  and  especially  the  court  of  Rome,  has 
for  a  long  time  been  affected;  whereby  it 
had  come  to  pass,  that  these  pestilent  dis- 
eases growing  to  their  height  by  little  and 
little,  the  church  as  we  see  is  upon  the  very 
brink  of  ruin."  "Your  holiness  very  well 
understands  the  original  of  these  mischiefs; 
that  some  Popes  your  predecessors,  having 
itching  ears,  as  says  the  Apostle  Paul,  heap- 
ed up  teachers  alter  their  own  lusts,  not  to 
learn  from  them  what  they  ought  to  do,  but 
that  they  should  take  pains  and  employ 
their  wit  to  .find  out  ways  how  it  might  be 
lawful  for  them  to  do  what  they  pleased. 
Hence  it  is  come  to  pass  that  there  have 
been  Doctors  ever  ready  to  maintain  that  all 
benefices  being  the  Pope's,  and  the  Lord 
having  a  right  to  sell  what  is  his  own,  it 
must  necessarily  follow  that  the  Pope  is  not 
capable  of  the  guilt  of  Simony  ;  in  so  much 
that  the  Pope's  will  and  pleasure,  whatever 
it  be,  must  needs  be  the  rule  of  all  that  he 
does;  which  doubtless  would  end  in  believ- 
ing every  thing  lawful  that  he  had  a  mind  to 
do.  From  this  source,  as  from  the  Trojan 
horse,  so  many  abuses,  and  such  mortal  dis- 
eases  have  broken  forth  into  the  church  of 
God,  which  have  reduced  her  as  we  see  al- 
most to  a  state  of  desperation;  the  fame  of 
these  things  having  come  to  the  ears  even 
of  Infidels,  (let  your  holiness  believe  us 
speaking  what  we  know)  who  deride  Chris- 
tianity more  for  this  than  for  any  thing  else; 
so  that  through  ourselves,  we  must  needs 
say,  through  ourselves,  the  name  of  Christ 
is  blasphemed  among  the  nations."  They 
proceed  to  say,  "  we  will  touch  upon  the  mat- 
ters only  that  belong  to  the  office  of  univer- 
sal pastor,  some  also  that  are  proper  to  the 
Roman  Bishop."  They  dwell  with  peculiar 
emphasis  upon  the  point  "that  it  is  not  law- 
ful for  the  Pope  who  is  Christ's  Vicar,  to  make 
any  gain  to  himself  of  the  use  of  the  keys." 
Another  abuse  is,  "  that  in  the  ordination  of 
Priests  no  manner  of  care  and  diligence  is 
used;  the  most  uneducated  youths  of  evil 
manners,  are  admitted  to  holy  orders;  from 
hence  grow  innumerable  scandals;  and  the 
reverence  of  God's  worship  is  well  nigh  ex- 


tinguished." "  Another  abuse  is  the  chang- 
ing of  benefices  upon  contracts  that  are  all 
of  them  simonical,  and  in  which  no  regard 
is  had  to  any  thing  but  gain."  "Almost 
all  the  Pastors  are  withdrawn  from  their 
flocks  which  are  almost  every  where  en- 
trusted with  hirelings"  •*  In  the  orders  of 
the  religious,  many  of  them  are  so  degene- 
rate that  they  are  grown  scandalous.'' 
"  Another  abuse,  is  that  with  Nuns  un- 
der the  care  of  conventual  Friars,  in  most 
Monasteries,  public  sacrileges  are  commit- 
ted, to  the  intolerable  scandal  of  the  citi- 
zens!" "The  collectors  for  the  Holy 
Ghost,  St.  Anthony,  and  others  of  this 
kind,  put  cheats  upon  rustics,  and  simple 
people;  and  entangle  them  in  a  world  of  su- 
perstition." "  Another  abuse  is  the  absolu- 
tion of  a  simonical  person  — this  plague  reigns 
in  the  church — they  buy  their  absolution, 
and  so  they  keep  the  benefice  they  bought 
before."  "This  city  of  Rome  is  both  the 
mother  of  the  church  and  mistress  of  other 
churches,  wherefore  the  worship  of  God  and 
purity  of  manners  should  flourish  there  most 
of  all.  But  yet  holy  father  all  strangers  are 
scandalized  when  they  go  into  St.  Peter's 
church  and  see  what  slovenly,  ignorant 
priests  say  mass  there."  "  Nay  in  this  city 
******  walk  about  as  if  they  were  goodly 
matrons,  and  are  at  noon-day  followed  up 
and  down  by  men  of  the  best  account  in  the 
families  of  Cardinals,  and  by  clergymen." 
"  We  hope  that  you  are  chosen  to  restore  the. 
name  of  Christ  forgotten  by  the  nations  and 
even  by  us  the  clergy,  that  hereafter  it  may 
live  in  our  hearts,  and  appear  in  our  actions; 
to  heal  our  diseases,  to  reduce  the  flock  of 
Christ  into  one  sheepfold,  to  remove  from  us 
that  indignation  and  vengeance  of  God, 
which  we  deserve,  which  is  now  ready  to  fall 
upon  us,  which  now  hangs  over  our  heads!" 
This  portentous  letter  was  addressed  to 
Paul  the  3d.  One  of  its  authors  was  after- 
wards a  pope  himself.  The  picture  it  gives 
of  the  state  of  the  church,  leaves  room  for  no 
comment.  I  only  add,  that  long  before 
this,  Council  after  Council  had  de- 
creed A  REFORMATION  TO  BE  INDISPENSA- 
BLE ; — Pope  after  Pope  had  owned  that 

IT     WAS     NEEDED — AND     EUROPE    RESOUNDED 
WITH   THE    CALL    FOR    REFORMATION. 

I  am  youps,  &c.        John  Breckinridge. 

P.  S.  I  cannot  stoop  to  notice  any  far- 
ther your  impertinent  calls  for  a  name.  Mr. 
Burtt  was  the  original,  responsible  informant. 
In  him  my  information  terminates.  He  in- 
formed the  person  who  wrote  to  me.  His 
name  you  have;  and  can  claim  no  more.    J.B. 


i 


CONTROVERSY N°.   19. 


Rule  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  June  6th,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir,— I  pay  no  attention  to  the 
charges  of  "insolence,"  "impertinence" 
"temper,"  &c  which  you  are  politely  pleas- 
ed to  make  against  me.  If  these  traits 
were  so  manifest  in  my  letters,  it  would 
have  been  quite  unnecessary  for  you  to 
apprise  the  public  of  the  fact.  On  these 
matters,  as  well  as  all  the  rest,  the  public 
will  form  its  own  judgment  without  the  aid 
of  direction  from  either  of  us. 

You  say  that  my  proposal  to  meet  you  be- 
fore the  General  Assembly,  for  the  purpose 
of  exposing  the  falsified  quotations  in  your 
letters  "  is  unfortunately  too,  late."  I  regret 
this  very  much.  But  you  are  aware  that  the 
Bishops  continued  in  session,  long  enough, 
after  you  had  received  my  last  letter,  for  you 
to  have  the  matter  decided  before  them.  If 
you  have  not  done  so,  and  will  not  expose 
vourself  to  the  consequences  of  having  the 


"add"  or  "omit"  such  words  and  senten- 
ces as  may  be  necesaary  to  make  him  express 
the  meaning  which  you  intend  to  convey. 
It  is  a  pity  that  this  Presbyterian  license  is 
not  conceded  to  the  members  of  the  Bar, 
Then  we  should  see  the  authorities  of  Black- 
stone,  and  Littleton,  quoted  to  defend  the 
o-uilty  culprit,  and  screen  him  from  the  ope- 
rations of  justice.  But  the  advocate  who 
should  be  detected,  suppressing  a  sentence 
in  the  middle  of  a  citation,  and  thus  per- 
verting the  meaning,  of  such  authority, 
would,  I  believe,  get  permission  to  quit  the 
court-house.  But  ministers  of  the  Gospel, 
it  seems,  may  do  such  things  with  impu- 
nity. 

In  fact,  so  far  from  being  abashed  by  the 
exposure,  you  seem  to  derive  new  courage 
from  it.  One  of  the  suppressed  passages 
was  as  follows. — The  Council  decreed  that 
those  who  died  in  the  crime  and  guilt  of  he- 
should  not  receive  the  rites  of  "  Chris- 


Ss^cCTw-  quotations,  tianJ  burial  '     Throws,  says  Mr     Br     k 

decided  by  an  impartial  umpire,  then  I  can  inndge,  "that  the  Holy  councd  would  not  let 

oSVsurmfse  that  you  have  your  reasons  for  the  poor  Heretics  rest  even  in  the : grave."  No 

your    p^sent   course.      Prudence,    we   are  Rev.  S,r,-for  the  'poor  here  ics    were  not 


told,  is  the  better  part  of  valour.  Experi- 
ence has  taught  us  both,  that  no  Presbyteri- 
an, who  has  the  reputation  of  a  scholar  to 
lose,  is  willing  to  risk  it  on  the  decision  of 
your  case.  If  you  would  only  reciprocate 
my  courtesy,  and  choose  a  Catholic  umpire, 
he  would  soon  decide.  None  of  those  mo- 
tives of  delicacy,  which  influenced  Doctor 
Wylie  would  occur  to  him.  But  the  pub- 
lic may  expect  to  see  the  extent  of  your 
falsifications  of  authorities,  in  the  shape  of 
an  appendix  to  this  Controversy.  The  ori- 
ginal text  and  context,  placed  in  juxtapo- 
sition with  the  garblings  contained  in  your 
letters,  will  make  the  matter  plain  to  all. 

I  was  quite  at  a  loss  to  know  how  you 
would  exculpate  yourself,  for  having  suppres- 
sed the  passages  which  I  quoted  in  my  last 
letter.  But  the  moment  I  saw  your  reply, 
the  whole  difficulty  vanished.  It  seems  that 
in  your  quotations,  you  are  scrupulous  only 
about  the  sense.  And  as  the  author  did  not 
understand  what  he  was  writing,  you  merely 


dead  yet.  It  merely  shows  that  lohen  they 
shoidd  die,  they  were  not  to  receive  the  rites 
of  burial,  after  the  manner  of  the  Christians 
from  whom  they  had  separated  themselves, 
by  heresy.  "  No  offering  is  to  be  made  for 
them"  says  the  council.  This  shows,  says 
Mr.  Breckinridge,  "  that  the  holy  council 

SUPERADDED  THE  PAINS  OF  HELL,  TO  MURDER, 
AND  TO  THE  REFUSAL  OF  CHRISTIAN  BURIAL." 

Why,  sir,  with  the  aid  of  your  pen,  "this" 
may  "show"  any  thing — and  to  those  who 
are  willing  to  see,  it  shows  a  great  deal. 
Comment  is  unnecessary. 

But  why  should  you  not  in  your  turn  ac- 
cuse me  also  of  misrepresentation  ?  And  es- 
pecially as  you  never  attempt  to  prove  what 
you  assert,  in  making  such  charges.  I  find 
myself  consequently  arraigned  on  seven  di** 
ferent  counts.  To  wit,  1st.  The  Confession 
of  Faith.  2.  The  persecution  of  the  Catho- 
lics of  Maryland  by  the  Puritans.  3.  The 
hanging  of  the  Quakers  in  New  England 
by  the  same  sect.     4.  The  principle  laid 


150 


down  by  John  Wesley  on  the  subject  of  tole- 
rating; Catholics.  5.  The  reference  to  your 
acknowledgment  at  our  late  interview  of  hav- 
ing garbled  the  extract  from  the  4th  council 
of  Lateran.  6.  My  charge  against  you,  of 
having  falsified  the  words  of  Bellarmine. — 
To  all  of  which  I  plead  not  guilty,  for  the 
following  reasons,  in  order. 

1.  As  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  I  quo- 
ted the  words,  referred  to  the  page, — 
specified  the  Publisher  and  the  date  of  pub- 
lication. I  could  not  be  more  scrupulously 
exact  in  my  reference.  Did  I  say  any  thing 
that  /  did  not  prove?  You  have  not  been 
able  to  point  it  out.  It  is  true  there  is  a 
"  reformed"  edition  of  the  confession,  exact- 
ly twelve  years  old,  from  which  it  seems  the 
"  offensive  passages  have  been  solemnly  re- 
jected." But  I  quoted  from  the  Confession, 
which  according  to  Dr.  Miller  both  Minis- 
ters and  candidates,  had  been  "obliged"  to 
adopt,  as  the  summary  of  the  Bible,  in  the 
year  1729.  How  then  am  I  guilty  of  mis- 
representation? Was  I  deceived  by  Dr. 
Miller's  authority  ? 

2.  In  my  letter  No.  15,  I  quoted  from  Jef- 
ferson's Notes  on  Virginia.  He  testifies  that 
the  Puritans,  persecuted  by  the  Episcopalians 
of  Virginia,  emigrated  in  considerable  num- 
bers to  Maryland,  to  enjoy  under  a  Popish 
Proprietary  that  liberty  of  conscience  which 
had  been  denied  them,  by  their  fellow  Pro- 
testants. 1  quoted  also  Wynne's  Hist. of  Brit. 
Empire  in  America,  for  proof  that  they  dis- 
possessed the  Catholics,  who  had  thus  re- 
ceived them,  of  civil  power  as  soon  as  they 
were  able.  And  that,  on  the  Revolution  in 
England,  they  adopted  the  whole  penal  code 
of  persecution  against  them.  Consequently, 
there  is  neither  mistake  nor  misrepresen- 
tation in  this.  I  merely  gave  the  testimony, 
not  of  Catholic,  but  of  Protestant  historians. 
If  then  all  this  is,  as  the  word  of  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge assures  us  "an  utter  fabrication" 
then  the  issue  is  between  him  and  the  Pro- 
testant writers  whom  I  quoted  at  the  time. 

3.  As  to  the  persecution  and  hanging  of 
the  Quakers  in  New  England  I  gave  also 
Protestant  authority,  Hist,  of  Baptists  in 
New  England,  vol.  I.  p.  390. — where,  be- 
sides, others,  whose  names  are  given,  there  is 
an  account  of  a  female,  named  Mary  Dyer, 
having  been  hanged  for  the  crime  of  Quaker- 
ism on  the  1st  of  June  1 660.  Consequently, 
there  is  no  mistake,  in  this  statement.  You  call 
the  authors  of  these  persecutions  "unto  the 
death,"  "  Congregationalists.'*  But  the  dis- 
tinction between  them,  and  Presbyterians,  is 
too  fine  for  modern  powers  of  discrimination. 


As  I  gave  my  authority  for  the  fact,  at  the 
time,  I  am  the  more  surprised  at  your  asking, 
"  upon  what  authority  /  have  ventured 
to  utter  so  unfounded  a  charge  ?"  Unfound- 
ed ! 

4.  The  next  case  has  reference  to  my  re- 
marks on  the  general  proposition  laid  down 
by  John  Wesley,  and  if  that  be  incorrect, 
again,  let  Wesley's  own^words  be  responsi- 
ble. Two  respectable  gentlemen,  of  the 
Methodist  persuasion,  called  on  me  the  other 
day,  to  say,  that,  in  their  opinion,  I  had  been 
unjust  towards  him,  by  the  isolated  manner, 
in  which  his  sentiment  was  introduced.  I 
felt  obliged  to  them  for  their  politeness,  in 
advising  me  of  what  they  conceived  to  be  my 
mistake,  and  what  they  regarded  at  the  same 
time  as  an  injury  to  one,  for  whose  memory, 
it  is  but  natural  that  they  should  entertain 
respect.  Accordingly  I  shall,  as  agreed 
upon,  submit  that  portion  of  the  context, 
which  they  think  necessary  to  elucidate  the 

meaning  of  the  passage  already  quoted 

"  That  no  Roman  Catholic  does  or  can  give 
security  for  his  allegiance  or  peaceable  be- 
haviour, I  prove  thus:  It  is  a  Roman  Catho- 
lic maxim,  established,  not  by  private  men, 
but,  by  a  public  Council  (so  said  Mr.  Wes- 
ley) that, '  no  faith  can  be  kept  with  heretics.' 
This  has  been  openly  avowed  by  the  Council 
ot  Constance,  but  it  never  was  openly  dis- 
claimed. Whether  private  persons  avow  or 
disavow  it,  it  is  &  fixed  maxim  of  the  Church 
of  Rome:  but  as  long  as  it  is  so,  nothing  can 
be  more  plain,  than  that  the  members  of  that 
Church  can  give  no  reasonable  security  to 
any  government  of  their  allegiance  or  peace- 
able behaviour  j  therefore,  they  ought  not  to 
be  tolerated  by  any  government,  Protestant, 
Mahometan  or  Pagan.1,1 

The  words  marked  in  italics  are  those 
which  I  quoted,  to  show  Mr.  Wesley's  sen- 
timents on  the  subject  of  tolerance  and  per- 
secution. It  is  not  an  acccidental  phrase, 
snatched  from  the  middle  of  a  paragraph- 
But  it  is  a  cool  deliberate  conclusion,  evolved 
with  syllogistic  precision  from  a  train  of  artifi- 
cial reasoning,  and  apparently  sober  reflection. 
But  could  not,  and  did  not,  every  persecutor, 
justify  his  cruelty  by  reasons  which  were  sa- 
tisfactory to  his  own  mind? — But  reasons^  of 
the  justice  of  which,  he  never  could  con- 
vince the  victim  of  his  intolerance. 

The  decision  of  the  Council  of  Constance, 
referred  to  by  Mr.  Wesley,  had  its  meaning 
qualified  by  the  very  circumstances  in  which 
it  originated— which  I  shall  briefly  state. 
John  Huss,  a  Priest  of  Bohemia,  was  cited 
before  the  Council,' — he  recognised  the  tribu- 


151 


nai; — and  obeyed  the  citation.  His  doc- 
trines were  condemned  as  heretical,  and  on 
his  refusing  to  retract  them,  he  was  given  oyer 
to  the  civil  laws  of  that  city,  which  was  free 
and  independent.  According  to  these  laws, 
death  was  the  penalty  of  the  crime,  of  which 
Huss  had  heen  convicted; — and  accordingly, 
like  Michael  Servelusin  Geneva,  he  was  burn- 
ed to  death. 

But  then,  the  '  faith'  on  which  Wesley 
built  his  syllogism,  had  been  pledged  to  John 
Huss,  by  the  Emperor  Sigismund  in  the 
form  of  a  safe  conduct,  or  passport  going, 
to,  and  returning  from  the  Council.  Nova 
this  '  faith'  had  not  been  kept  with  the  hcrm- 
tic,  since  he  was  not  allowed  to  return  ;^Tut 
was1  executed — whilst  the  Council  decided, 
that  the  party  who  had  pledged  this  '  faith,* 
was  not  bound  by  its  obligation,  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons.  1st.  Because  the  safe  conduct 
granted  by  the  Emperor  could  not  deprive 
the  Council  of  its  spiritual  right  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  doctrines  of  Huss  were 
heresies,  or  not.  2.  Because  it  could  not 
controul  the  administration  ol  the  civil  laws 
of  an  independent  state,  (as  Constance  was) 
in   which,    the   Emperor    had  no   authority. 

3.  Because  Huss  had  attempted  to  escape, 
and  thereby  forfeited  the  protection  of  Ids 
passport,  even  if  it  could  have  protected  him, 

4.  Because,  it  was  understood  between  the 
Emperor  and  Huss,  in  their  interview  at 
Prague,  that  if  the  Council  should  condemn 
his  doctrines,  he  (Huss)  would  retract  them; 
— the  Emperor  telling  him,  notwithstanding 
the  passport,  that  if  he  did  not  retract,  in 
such  a  case,  he,  himself,  would  light  the  pile 
to  consume  Huss.  These  are  the  facts  of  the 
case,  and  the  decree  simply  declares  that,  as 
the  Emperor  had  done  "  what  was  in  his 
power,'''' — having  no  power  over  the  doctrinal 
decision  of  the  Council;  nor  yet  over  the  ma- 
gistrates of  Constance ;  there  was  no  viola- 
tion of  the  '  faith'  he  had  pledged  by  his 
passport.  Here  are  the  whole  extent,  origin 
and  circumstances  of  that  famous  decree. 
for  which  the  Catholics  of  the  British  em- 
pire have  been  persecuted  for  the  last  three 
hundred  years.  This  decision,  thus  truly 
explained,  is  what  Mr.  Wesley  perverts  into 
a  "  Roman  Catholic  maxim,^  and  from 
which  he  concludes,  "  therefore,  Catholics 
ought  not  to  be  tolerated  by  any  govern- 
ment, Protestant,  Mahometan,  or  Pagan," 
It  never  was  a  Roman  Catholic  maxim,  ex- 
cept when  Pro'estant  calumny  made  it  so. 

But  the  occasion  on  which  Mr.  Wesley  gave 
publicity  to  this  unchristian  and  intolerant 
sentiment,  shows  to  what  an  extent  his  judg- 


ment, or  his  feelings  had  been  perverted.  It 
was  at  a  time  when  the  friends  of  civil  and 
religious  freedom  in  Great  Britain,  were 
struggling  for  the  repeal  of  some  of  the  most 
unnatural  laws  that  ever  were  framed  by 
the  ingenious  cruelty  of  man.  The  worst  of 
them  had  been  in  operation  against  the  Ca- 
tholics for  nearly  one  hundred  years,  having 
been  enacted  in  1699.  It  was  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  the  repeal  of  these  perse- 
cuting laws  that  the  sanguinary  mob,  of  which 
/Lord  George  Gordon  was  the  prime  spirit, 
had  formed  itself  into  what  was  called  the 
'.'  Protestant  association."  Under  the  gui- 
dance of  this  fanatic,  first  a  Protestant  and 
then  a  Jew,  the  Catholics  of  London  were 
sought  for  to  be  massacred; — their  houses 
and^chapels  burned  to  the  ground;  and  their 
clergy  and  themselves  hunted  into  holes  and 
coiners.  The  Hon.  Edmund  Burke  a  Protes- 
tant, says,  in  reference  to  these  Protestant 
barbarities  so  well  calculated  to  stir  the  blood 
of  men,  that,  on  the  part  of  the  Catholics, 
"  not  a  hand  was  moved  to  retaliate,  or  even 
to  defend.  Had  the  conflict  once  begun*' 
says  he,  "the  rage  of  their  persecutors  would 
have  redoubled.  Thus  fury  increasing  by 
the  reverberation  of  outrages,  house  being 
fired  for  house,  and  church  for  chapel,  I  am 
convinced  that  no  power  under  Heaven  could 
have  prevented  a  general  conflagration;  and 
at  this  day  London  would  have  been  a  tale." 
(Speech  at  Bristol  vol.  2.  Boat.  ed.  page  261.) 

Mr.  Wesley  was  no  stranger  to  their  prin- 
ciples, and  we  may  infertile  character  of  his 
own  from  the  fact,  that  in  his  old  age  he 
stood  forth  with  all  the  influence  of  his  re- 
puted sanctity  as  the  public  defender  of  this 
'•  Protestant  association;"  and  attempted  to 
prove  by  a  syllogism,  that  "  Catholics  ought 
not  to  be  tolerated  by  any  Government,  Pro- 
testant, Mohammedan  or  Pagan.'"  A  more 
savage  theorem  never  proceeded  from  a  Chris- 
tian pen.  Still  Mr.  Wesley  said  he  would 
not  persecute  any  man  for  his  religion.  But 
the  Apostle  tells'  us  "to  love,  not  in  word 
and  in  tongue,  but  in  truth  and  in  deed." 
Now  I  submit  to  the  gentlemen  themselves 
who  called  on  me,  to  say,  in  candor,  whether 
I  had  been  unjust  towards  the  memory  of 
Mr.  Wesley  in  my  former  remark. 

5.  You  deny  that,  in  our  "  late  interview," 
you  had  acknowledged  having  garbled  the 
extract  from  the  4th  Council  of  Lateran,  by 
"  leaving  out  whole  sentences."  And  char- 
acterise my  assertion  to  that  effect  as  a  "  gra- 
tuitous   MISREPRESENTATION."       Let  US  See. 

In  reference  to  this  extract,  in  responding  at 
the  time,  to  my  question — "  Do  you  give  it 


152 


as  continuous  and  literal  ?''  Your  reply  was 
"  I  answer  unhesitatingly — I  do."  In  our 
interview  you  acknowledged  that  you  had 
omitted  whole,  sentences  "  in  the  extract.'' 
How  then,  could  you  have  said,  that  it  was 
"continuous"?  In  your  last  letter  you  ad- 
mit, that  the  extract  was  not  "continuous,'''' 
by  telling  us  that  you  "gave  an  abstract 
or  continued  sense  of  the  whole  passage}' 
How  then,  can  you  say,  that  it  is  "gratuitous 
misrepresentation"  to  have  given  you  credit 
for  this  acknowledgment?  Let  the  public^ 
judge  by  the  facts. 

6.  Your  were  detected  in  representing  a 
chapter  of  Bellarmine  that,  "  it  was  the  duty 
of  the  Church  to  burn  heretics."  Bellarmine 
never  said  so.  But  it  was  the  'sense'  you 
will  contend.  No,  Rev.  Sir,  it  was  not  the 
sense;  and  even  if  it  were,  it  was  literary 
forgery,  to  place  it  between  inverted  commas, 
as  it  were  the  very  words  of  the  author. 
Now,  however,  you  give  a  new  quotation, 
and  transfer  it  to  the  "very  first  sentence 
in  the  chapter."  It  would  be,  the  "first" 
sentence,  were  it  not  that  there  are  in  the 
chapter  two  paragraphs  going  before  it.  Bel- 
larmine contended  that  the  church  "may 
and  ought,"  to  cast  off  heretics,  from  her 
communion.  This  is  Presbyterian,  as  well  as 
Catholic,  doctrine.  Bellarmine  contended 
that  heretics,  so  cast  off,  "  may  and  ought"  to 
be  punished  "by  the  civil  power,  with  tem- 
poral penalties  and  even  death  itself,"  as  the 
case  may  require.  This  is  not,  never  was, 
never  will  be,  any  part  or  portion  of  Catholic 
doctrine.  And  in  the  paragraph  immediate- 
ly preceding  that  which  you  call,  "  the  very 
first  sentence  of  the  chapter,  Bellarmine 
quotes  Calvin,  Beza,  and  other  "  Reformers," 
to  show  that  they  all  held  the  principle  which 
he  was  about  to  lay  down.  It  is  singular 
enough  that  whenever  he  wished  to  establish 
the  principle  of  persecution,  he  invariably  quo- 
ted the  authority  and  practice  of  John  Cal- 
vin. How  much  could  he  have  strengthen- 
ed the  argument  of  intolerance,  if,  living  at 
this  day,  he  might  appeal  to  facts  and  show, 
as  I  can,  that  persecution  even  unto  blood, 
has,  in  every  country,  attended  the  political 
ascendency  of  Calvinism ! 

7.  The  "fact"  on  which  you  lay  such  em- 
phasis, touching  the  case  of  "John  Huss  and 
Jerome  of  Prague,"  has  been  sufficiently 
disposed  of  under  the  head  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
case.  Protestants  look  upon  these  heretics 
as  "Reformers" — but  they  were  such  "  Re- 
formers," as  would  have  been  consigned  to 
the  gallows,  if  they  had  preached  their  doc- 
Vines  in  Boston,  in  the  year  1660. 


The  remainder  oi  your  letter  is  miscella- 
neous. With  regard  to  the  Bull  of  Inno- 
cent VIII. ,  the  original  of  which  is  "in  the 
University  of  Cambridge,"  (as  you  tell  us) 
it  appears  you  made  a  "mistake"  of  ten 
years  as  to  its  date.  But  such  "  mistakes" 
seem  to  be  the  very  source  and  secret 
of  your  proioess.  Accordingly  gathering 
strength  from  exposure,  and  having  an  eye  to 
the  susceptibilities  of  human  sympathy,  you 
>tell  us  quite  pathetically: — "  I  spread  out  to 
your  view  also  the  infamous  Bull  of  Pope 
Jnnocent  VIII.  against  the  poor  peeled  and 
Vutchered  Waldenses."  If  they  were  "peel- 
eat  and  butchered,"  it  was  wasting  parch- 
inem  to  make  any  decree  against  them. 
Parsons,  it  seems,  can  issue  Bulls  as  well 
as  Popes.  You  ask  me  how  "I  meet  it?" 
I  answer,  so  long  as  it  is  in  the  "  University 
of  Cambridge,"  and  no  where  else,  I  am  not 
disposed  to  meet  it  at  all.  You  ask  me,  "Do 
I  deny  it?"  And  without  waiting  for  my 
answer,  you  reply  that  "  I  dare  not."  Now 
I  reply,  that  I  "  dare,"  and  do,  deny  it,  flat- 
ly. We  have  advanced  too  far  in  the  dis- 
cussion, for  me  or  the  public  to  receive  your 
assertion,  as  authority  for  its  existence  in 
"  Cambridge." — And  there  is  no  such  docu- 
ment found  in  the  Bullarium  of  Innocent 
VIII.  which  I  have  examined.  Besides,  the 
very  history  of  it  given  by  you,  carries  with 
it,  to  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  sub- 
ject, prima  facie  evidence  of  fabrication. 
Lawyers,  cunning  rogues,  have  a  way  of 
sifting  and  exposing  false  testimony,  which 
the  witness  himself  never  suspected. 

But  the  3d  Council  of  Lateran,  after  having 
directed  with  great  cruelty,  that  when  the 
"poor  heretics"  died,  "they  should  not  re- 
ceive the  rites  of  Christian  burial"  in  their 
interment; — and  that  "  no  oblation  should  be 
made  for  them  ;" — decreed  also  that  it  was 
lawful  for  princes  to  reduce  those  other  "poor 
heretics"  (whose  history  you  thought  proper 
to  suppress)  to  slavery;  for  no  crime  in  the 
world  !  except  "  destroying  churches  and 
monasteries,  sparing  neither  widows  nor  vir- 
gins, neither  old  nor  young,  neither  sex  nor 
age,  but  desolating  every  thing,  after  the  mem- 
ner  of  pagans!!!  On  this  my  Rev.  oppo- 
nent says,  "  Tell  me  then,  Mr.  Hughes, 
"  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness, unalienable  rights?  So  says  our  memo- 
rable Declaration  of  Independence."  I  will 
tell  you  then,  as  you  do  not  seem  to  be  aware 
of  the  fact,  that  Pope  Alexander  III.,  under 
whom  this  Council  was  held,  did  more  for 
the  extinction  of  slavery  than  all  the  Con- 
gresses and  all  the  societies  that  ever  exist- 


153 


ed  in  America.  He  abolished  it  as  far  as  he 
could,  and  in  allowing  these  "poor  heretics," 
who  committed  such  crimes  against  society 
to  be  reduced  to  slavery,  he  only  madejin 
exception  to  his  own  laws.  But  when^ 
wished  to  pay  a  compliment  to  "  our  memo 
rable  Declaration  of  Independence,  were 
you  not  rather  unfortunate  in  coupling  it 
with  an  allusion  to  the  question  of  slavery  ? 
Was  the  allusion  made  ironically?  It 
reminds  me  of  the  negro  slave,  who,  on 
his  way  to  Georgia  through  Washington, 
shook  his  manacled  hands  at  the  Capitol, 
and  began  to  sing,  "  Hail  Columbia, 
land." 

Then  follows  the  usual  train  of  "  1 
questions.''  1.  "What  have  you  said  to 
explain  your  dilemma,  which  makes  you 
justify  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  or  give  up 
your  infallibility?  Not  a  word."  There  was 
no  dilemma  in  the  case.  The  infallibility 
of  the  Synagogue  ceased  from  the  moment  that 
Christ  made  the  revelation  of  his  doctrines. 
This  I  had  "said."  2.  "What  have  you 
said  in  answer  to  my  threefold  exposure  of 
the  doctrine  of  infallibility,  in  my  last  let- 
ter? Not  a  word."  The  only  "  exposure" 
I  could  discover  in  your  last  letter,  was  the 
exposure  of  yourself.  And  on  this  I  said 
what  I  was  compelled  to  say  in  truth;  to  the 
which,  you  reply  with  the  argument  of  epi- 
thets "  insolence,"  "slander,"  "  bully,""  im- 
pertinent," and  other  graceful  expressions.  3. 
"  What  have  you  said  of  the  Apocryphal 
books?  Not  a  word."  Why  yes,  I  said  and 
proved  that  the  Reformers  turned  those  books 
out  of  the  canon; — that  Calvin  cut  oft' the  Apo- 
calypse, Luther  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
St.  James  and  St.  Jude;  and  I  showed  that 
Protestants  have  the  same  authority  for  the 
books  which  they  regard  as  apocryphal, 
which  they  have  for  any  of  those  which 
are  called  deutero-canonical.  Do  you  not 
recollect  the  letter  in  which  I  convicted  you 
of  having  made  a  little  mistake  of  about 
eleven  hundred  years,  in  reference  to  the 
formation  of  the  canon?  4.  "  What  have 
you  said  of  unwritten  traditions?  Not  a 
word."  The  same  answer  suits  all  ques- 
tions. 5.  "The  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers.  Where  is  it?"  It  is  in  every  doc- 
trine of  the  Catholic  Church — in  all  those 
dogmas  which  are  held  by  Catholic/atf/i — and 
rejected  by  Protestant  opinions.  6.  "I  of- 
fered to  discuss  with  you  the  evidence  of 
the  Divinity  of  our  Lord,  from  the  word  of 
God."  You  did;  and  I  referred  you  to  the 
Universalist  with  whom  you  agree,  as  to 
the  rule  of  faith.     7.  "I  put  four  questions  to 


you — and  yet  small  as  they  are,  you  do  not 
attempt  to  answer  them."  The  reader  will 
observe  that  it  was  in  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions, that  I  gave  an  extract  from  Rush- 
worth,  showing  that  the  Episcopal  prayer 
'    ok  was  put  on  the  Presbyterian  Index  Ex- 

rgalorious,   as   a  prohibited   book.      The 
reading  of  it,  was,  for  the  first  "  offence,"  five 
polndsyme;  the  second,  ten;  and  the  third, 
iprisonmenl.^ 

'As  to  "Grotius,  Locke,  Milton,  Saurin,  and 
^oung" — ask  the  first  educated  Catholic  you 

eet,  and  perhaps,  notwithstanding  the  pre- 
ended  prohibition,  he  will  convince  you 
that  he  is  better  acquainted  with  those  au- 
thors, than  some  Protestant  ministers.  Even 
your  letters  are  read;  and  Catholics,  in  the 
perusal,  are  comforted  with  the  recollection 
of  the  divine  words,  "Blessed  are  you  when 
men  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you 
falsely,  for  my  sake." 

Your  reference  to  Bellarmine  ("Book  3. 
chap.  23  of  Laics")  is  attended  with  the  usu- 
al fatality.  There  is  no  23d  chapter  in  the 
book.  Bellarmine  in  the  22d  and  last  chap- 
ter, speaking  of  the  circumstances  in  which 
"  heretics,  thieves  and  other  wicked  men,  are 
to  be  rooted  out,"  lays  down  the  rule  nearly 
as  quoted.  But  the  scrap  of  latin  which 
you  have  citeil,  in  parenthesis,  though  con- 
sisting of  three  words  only,  is  falsified. 
"Sunt  procul  extirpandi"  are  the  words  of 
your  letter,  "Sunt  procul  dubio  extirpandi," 
are  those  of  the  author.  But,  as  usual,  you. 
will  say  that  you  give  the  sense!  and  ask 
with  increasing  energy,  what  difference  is 
caused,  in  the  meaning,  by  the  suppression  I 
You  might  also  have  told  your  readers,  that 
Bellarmine  in  the  remarks  referred  to,  gave 
them  as  the  sentiments  of  St.  .Augustine,  who 
is  rather  a  favourite  with  Presbyterians. 
He  gives  the  book  and  chapter  of  that  Fa- 
ther's works  where  the  sentiments  may  be 
found. 

Having  been  pressed  at  an  early  stage  of 
the  controversy  by  arguments  on  the  rule  of 
faith,  you  seem  to  have  thought  that  a  topic 
which  would  be  more  in  accordance  with  the 
prejudices  of  Protestants  would  suit  better. 
Persecution  was  a  favourite  theme.  It  was 
most  likely  to  catch  the  eye  of  popular  feel- 
ing. But  the  tables  have  been  turned  against 
you.  It  has  been  shown  on  the  testimony  of 
Protestant  writers,  that  all  the  Reformers 
were  persecutors — whilst  the  Presbyterians, 
when  they  had  political  power,  sacrificed  a 
greater  number  of  human  victims  to  the  de- 
mon of  intolerance  than  any  other  denomina- 
tion.    There  is  no  country,  no   colony  in 


1S4 


which  Presbyterians  wielded  the  sword  of 
civil  power,  without  dying  it,  in  the  blood 
of  persecution.  What  advantage  then  Rev. 
Sir,  have  you  derived  from  the  discussion  of 
this  unpleasant  topic,  which,  considering  the 
sect  whose  name  you  bear,  you  should  hav, 
been  the  last  to  introduce.  The  religion  of 
Christ  does  not  authorise  persecution — and 
yet  Protestants  have  persecuted  quite  as 
fiercely  as  Catholics.  This  is  the  amoufct 
of  it. 

But  then  the  rule  of  faith — to  which  yd 
promised  "  strict  adherence.''  What  has 
become  of  it?  Your  last  letter,  brief  as  the 
allusion  is  to  that  question  gives  us  a  new 
view  of  the  subject.  Here  are  your  words, 
"  all  I  have  to  say  now  is  this,  that  through- 
outyourattemptsat  discussionyou  have  called 
private  interpretation  our  rule  of  faith.  The 
Bible  is  the  infallible  rule  of  faith.  The  Bible 
is  the  rule,  interpretation  is  the  use  of  the  rule. 
If  men  pervert  it,  that  is  not  the  rule  of 
faith."  In  this  declaration,  the  "radical 
delusion"  of  Protestantism  stands  confes- 
sed. Is  it  not  by  "private  interpretation" 
that  Protestants  are  directed  to  understand 
the  Bible  ?  It  certainly  is.  And  here  is 
the  advocate  of  that  principle  declaring 
that  "  private  inteprretation  is  not  the  rule  ol 
faith!" 

But  the  real  question  is,  how  can  a  Pro- 
testant know  what  are  the  doctrines  of  Jesus 
Christ  ?  From  the  Bible.  The  Bible  on 
the  shelf1-  No.  Then  it  must  be  the  Bible 
as  he.  understands  it.  No;  that  would  be 
*'  private  interpretation."  And  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge has  just  told  hiin  that  '  this  is  not  his 
rule  of  faith.'  Here  then  is  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  all  that  my  argument  required. 
Protestants  have  "perverted"  that  sacred 
book  to  the  support  of  their  own  heretical 
opinions — and  yet  they  charge  upon  the 
teaching  of  the  Bible  the  impieties  of  their 
contradictory  doctrines.  The  doctrines  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  are  the  doctrines  of  Christ, 
but  "  if  men  pervert  them,''  by  "  private  inter- 
pretation," then  "  they  are  not  the  doctrines 
of  Christ." 

Where  then,  is  that  "infallible  Rule  of 
Faith  established  by  Christ  to  guide  us  in 
matters  of  Religion,  and  to  determine  dis- 
putes in  his  Church  ?"  Let  Protestants 
look  to  it.  "  He  that  believeth  not,"  says  the 
"  Son  of  God,  shall  be  condemned."  Christ 
would  not  have  made  this  declaration,  with- 
out providing  some  means  by  which  Christians 
could  find  out,  what  they  are  to  believe — 
whilst  Mr.  Breckinridge  is  compelled  finally 
to  admit,  that  no  such  means  exist  among 


Protestants.     "Private   interpretation,"  he 
says,  is  not  the  Rule  of  Faith." 

The  reader  who  will  take  the  pains  to  look 
back,  to  my  arguments  on  the  Catholic 
RuTe^of  belief,  as  laid  down  in  letters  No.  5. 
7.  9.  will  perceive  the  solidity  of  the  basis, 
on  which  our  principle  is  established.  He 
will  perceive  that  it  is  founded  on  the  words 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  sustained  by  the 
testimony  of  occlesiastical  history,  and  in 
perfect  accordance  with  the  light  of  reason 
itself.  Let  him  compare  letter  with  letter, 
and  decide  whether  there  has  been,  amidst 
I  the  assertion,  crimination,  garbled  autho- 
ties  and  abuse  with  which  the  Catholic 
Clrorch  has  been  assailed,  one  genuine  proof 
adduced  against  the  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith, 
or  in  support  of  the  Protestant  principle. 
On  the  other  hand  let  him  decide  whether  it 
has  not  been  proved  by  facts,  undisputed  and 
indisputable,  that  the  Protestant  principle  of 
religious  guidance,  is  that  which  was  adopted 
by  all  the  heretics  of  ancient  and  modern 
times,  which  has  conducted  the  Protestants 
on  the  continent  of  Europe  into  the  substance 
of  infidelity,  and  which  is  bringing  about  the 
same  state  of  things  in  our  own  country. 
Tracts,  Bible  classes,  Sunday  Schools,  Camp- 
meetings,  Revivals,  and  the  general  ma- 
chinery of  Protestantism,  of  which  the  most 
important  part,  are  the  ministers  them- 
selves, may  arrest  the  progress  of  infideli- 
ty for  a  while;  but  the  physical  excitation 
produced  by  these  irregular  and  artificial 
means  cannot  last.  The  principle  on  which 
the  whole  system  rests,  is  intrinsically  falla- 
cious. 

Perceiving,  Rev.  Sir,  that  you  are  anxious 
to  pass  to  the  second  topic  of  discussion,  I 
am  now  prepared  to  indulge  you  in  your  de- 
sire. The  next  question  is  this: — "  Whe- 
ther the  Protestant  Religion  is  the  Religion 
of  Christ  ?"  Six  months  ago  I  requested  you 
to  furnish  me  with  the  definition' of  the  "Pro- 
testant Religion."  You  promised,  but  you 
have  not  performed.  Be  pleased  then,  in 
your  next  letter  to  tell  me  what  the  "  Pro- 
testant Religion"  is.  I  wish  to  take  your 
own  definition,  so  that  there  may  be  no  mis- 
take on  either  side.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
add  any  thing  more  to  this  communication, 
since  the  subject  is  fairly  exhausted  by 
your  unexpected  declaration  that  "private 
interpretation  is  not  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith."  The  Bible,  without  this,  it  can- 
not be. 


Yours, 


Jno.  Hughes. 


1SS 


P.  S.  In  the  postscript  to  your  last  let- 
ter, you  say  as  follows:  "I  cannot  stoop  to 
notice  any  farther  your  impertinent  (0  fie!) 
calls  for  a  name.  Mr.  Burtt  was  the  origi- 
nal,   responsible   informant."      Then,   Rev. 


Sir,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Burtt  shall  be  held  to  his 
responsibility.  The  charge  was  a  gratui- 
tous falsehood  and  calumny.  And  as  Mr. 
Burtt  is  "responsible,"  let  him  see  to  it. 


CONTROVERSY N°.  20. 


Kulc  of  Faith. 


Philadelphia,  Junt  13th,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

Sir, — The  celebrated  Pascal,  himself  a 
Romanist,  has  said  in  his  Provincial  Letters, 
against  the  jesuits,  that  they  publicly 
maintained  this  opinion  viz.  it  is  only  a  ve- 
nial sin  to  calumniate  and  ruin  the  credit  of 
such  as  speak  evil  of  you,  by  accusing  them 
of  false  crimes.  To  what  other  school  of  mo- 
rals shall  I  trace  the  unblushing  and  false 
charges  with  which  your  recent  letter 
abounds.  Your  current  argument  which 
stands  as ■ the  solitary  reply  to  decrees  of 
Councils,  and  Bulls  of  Popes,  to  authentic 
public  records,  and   undisputable   facts,   is 

this "  IT  IS  FALSE,"  "  YOU  HAVE   GARBLED." 

Your  Bible,  your  public  Prayers,  your 
Breviary,  and  Mass-book,  your  Catechism, 
decrees  of  Councils  and  Bulls  of  Popes, 
being  in  a  dead  language,  the  only  way  to  ex- 
amine your  system  is  to  bring  them  to  pub- 
lic view  by  translations.  My  letters  (as 
you  know)  have  abounded  with  such  matter; 
drawn  from  the  originals — and  very  often  the 
barbarous  Latin  has  been  given  side  by  side 
with  the  translations.  Finding  these  autho- 
rities too  stubborn  to  be  tortured  from  their 
plain  and  terrible  sense,  you  have  set  your- 
self to  defame  the  witness,  and  thus  destroy 
the  testimony.  With  ignorant  or  prejudiced 
persons,  your  strong  assertions  may  have 
some  weight.  But  every  scholar  must  see 
that  you  assail  my  character  in  vain;  that 
these  authorities  have  been  honestly  adduc- 
ed; that  they  expose  your  church;  and  that 
you  do  not  even  attempt  an  answer  to  the  bo- 
dy of  them.  Thus,  for  example,  your  answer 
to  the  Bull  of  Innocent  the  8th,  was  that  no 
such  Bull  was  issued  in  1477,  and  you  intima- 
ted that  a  mistake  in  the  date  was  a  proof  of 
forgery.  "  Such  Bulls,  you  say,  come  from 
another  quarter."'  When  pressed  by  the 
question,  was  not  such  a  Bull  published  in 
1487,  you  have  actually  the  unthinking  har- 
dihood to  deny  that  there  ever  was  such  a 

Bull.        "  I  DO    DENY    IT    FLATLY."       Now    for 

the  proof.     In  Baronius's  Annals,  19th  vol. 
page  386,  section  25,   we  are  told  that  the 
sprouts  of  the  Waldensian  heresy  re-appear- 
z 


Qua  indignitate  permo- 
tus,  Innocentus,  Gallos,  Sa- 
baudus,  ac  Germanos,  in 
quorum  lunitibus,  impielas 
defixa  haerebat,  ad  hoereti- 
cos  delendos  expedirfe  arma 
jussii;  et  gravibus  poenis, 
hseretieorum  fautores  per- 
culit  :  turn  Albertum  de 
Caphanies  Archidiaconon 
Cremonciisem,  amplissimis 
instrucium  mandatis  decre- 
vit  ut  religiosam  crueis 
niilitiam  ad  \V~aldenses  ex- 
seindendos  promulgaret,  ac 
priiicipes,  et  Episcopos  in 
eosdein  concitaret — quibus 
Uteris  heec  lemporis  nota 
adjecta  est.  Dat.  Romae. 
apud  S.  Petrum.  anno  in- 
caniatiouis  Dominieoe  1487. 
V.  Kal.  Maii.  Pontificatus 
nostri  anno  iii. 


ing,  according  to  custom,  an  Inquisitor  was 
appointed;  but  these  Heretics  arose  in  arms, 
and  slew  his  servant. 

By  which  indignity  Inno- 
cent, much  excited,  order- 
ed the  Gauls,  Savoyese,  and 
Germans,  within  whose  ter- 
ritories the  impiety  stiM  re- 
mained firmly  rooted,  to 
lake  up  arms  for  the  des- 
truction of  the  Heretics  ; 
and  he  smote  ihe  favourers 
of  the  Heretics  with  heavy 
punishments  :  at  the  same 
time  he  commissioned  Al- 
bert de  Capitanies,  Arch- 
deacon of  Cremona,  with 
ample  powers  to  publish  a 
crusade  for  the  extermina- 
tion of  the  Waldenses,  and 
to  stir  up  Princes  and  Bish- 
ops against  them. — The  dat? 
of  this  document  is  as  fol- 
lows :  Given  at  Rome  at 
St.  Peter's,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord's  incarna- 
tion 1487,  5ih  of  Kal- 
ends of  May,  and  of  our 
Pontificate  the  3d. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  testimony  of  your 
own  great  annalist.  How  you  will  settle 
the  matter  with  him,  I  know  not.  Perhaps 
this  is  only  his  opinion — surely  it  is  not  a 
Protestant  fabrication.  But  here  is  the  Bull, 
Brief,  or  whatever  you  please  to  call  it,  the 
public  decree  of  the  Pope,  ordering  three 
States  to  kike  up  arms  for  the  extermination 
of  heretics ;  and  in  the  name  of  God,  com- 
missioning Princes  and  Bishops  to  destroy 
them!  Whether,  then,  we  regard  the  detest- 
able act  of  the  Pope,  or  your  "fiat  denial"  of 
it,  the  reader  must  alike  be  assured  of  the 
guilt  of  your  church,  and  the  shifts  of  her 
defender! 

1.  In  yonr  letter  (No.  17)  you  said  "the 
Episcopalians  ol  Maryland  persecuted  the 
Presbyterians;  the  Catholics  of  Mary- 
land protected  them.  The  gratitude  of  the 
Presbyterians  was  the  gratitude  of  the  ser- 
pent, that  stings  the  bosom  which  fostered 
it.  They  put  down,  and  persecuted  these 
very  Catholics  as  soon  as  it  was  in  their 
power."  In  letter  (No.  18)  I  told  you  it 
was  "an  utter  fabrication."  In  your 
last  letter  you    reply   "  He  (Mr.   Jefferson) 


158 


testifies  that  the  Puritans  (mark  reader,  not 
Presbyterians,  Puritans,)  persecuted  by  the. 
Episcopalians  of  Virginia,  emigrated  in  con- 
siderable numbers  to  Maryland,''''  §-c.  fyc. 
Anil  is  this  the  only  defence  for-  the  un- 
founded charge?  Are  the  Puritans  and  Pres- 
byterians the  same  people  in  history?  Does 
not  your  defence  confess  that  it  was  a  fabri- 
cation? I  would  gladly  attribute  this  to  ig- 
norance. 

2.  You  are  equally  unfortunate  in  the 
case  of  the  Quakers.  Having  said  "the 
Quakers  of  New  England  ivere  hanged  by  the 
Presbyterians,''''  I  denied  it,  and  called  on 
you  for  proof.  And  what  is  your  proof? 
You  call  the  authors  of  this  persecution 
unto  death,  '  Congregational ists.'  "But  the 
distinction  between  them  and  Presbyterians, 
is  too  fine  for  modern  powers  of  discrimina- 
tion." A  man  who  writes  with  your  free- 
dom, should  have  a  good  memory.  You  can 
see  no  distinction  between  Presbyterians 
and  Congregationalists,  where  it  is  conveni- 
ent to  make  the  terms  convertible !  Re- 
member this  when  you  speak  of  the  divi- 
sions of  Protestants ! 

3.  Your  defence  of  the  proceedings  against 
John  Huss,  is  certainly  candid  and  ominous. 
It  is  however  a  misrepresentation  of  the  case 
in  many  of  the  most  important  particulars. 
Lenfant  tells  us  that  Huss  said,  in  presence 
of  the  Council,  J  came  to  this  city  relying  on 
the  public  faith  of  the  Emperor  who  £a  now 
present.  He  then  looked  him  in  the  face; 
and  Sigismond  blushed  fur  his  own  baseness, 
feeling  the  truth  of  the  reproach.     When  the 

Diet  of  Worms  plead  this  example  of  the 
Council  of  Constance,  and  of  Sigismond,  in 
order  to  induce  Charles  V.  to  betray  Lu- 
ther, he  replied,  UI  am  resolved  not  to 
blush  with  my  predecessor."  And  ought  not 
you,  Sir,  to  blush  for  defending  such  a  deed? 
Dupin  (your  own  historian)  says,  "  The 
Council  of  Constance  being  now  appointed, 
the  Pope  and  Emperor  invited  John  Huss  to 
come  thither,  and  give  an  account  of  his 
doctrine — and  that  he  might  do  it  with  all 
freedom,  the  Emperor  gave  him  a  safe  con- 
duct, whereby  he  gave  him  leave  to  come  free- 
ly to  the  Council  and  return  again.v  But 
more  of  this  hereafter;  I  only  add  now,  that 


mitre  of  paper  on  which  devils  were  painted. 
4.  The  endless   iteration   of  trifles   is  be- 
neath   the  dignity    of    inquiry   after    truth. 
Yet   they  say,   "  straws   show  the   way   the 
wind    blows."     You   charge   me    with    sup- 
pressing   a  single  word,    as  follows:  "  The 
scrap  of  Latin  which  you  have  cited   in  pa- 
renthesis, though  consisting  of  three  words 
only,  is  falsified.     Sunt   procul   extirpandi, 
are  the   words  of  your  letter — sunt   procul 
dubio  extirpandi',  are  the  words  of  the  au- 
thor."    Even  had   there  been  accidentally 
such  an  omission,  the  full  translation  of  the 
absent  word,  looked  you  in  the  face,   in  the 
same    sentence.      But   your   readers    must 
smile,  if  a  more  serious  feeling  be  not  pro- 
duced,  to  see  the  entire  sentence  in  all  the 
papers,  the  Presbyterian,   the   Catholic  He- 
rald, &c.  &c.     How  could  you  permit  your- 
self to   make  such  a  mistake?     Does  it  not 
prove   beyond   a   doubt  that  you   feel   your 
difficulties,  and  are  at  a  loss  for  a  refuge  from 
them?     I  do  from  my  heart  pity  you. 

5.  As  to  the  notorious  decree  which  it  seems 
you  will  make  me  confess  that  I  did  garble, 
I  wish  you  would  produce  the  whole  passage. 
The  parts  left  out  did  not  "garble"  the  pas- 
sage; but  were  all  to  my  purpose;  and  I  re- 
gretted to  lose  them.  But  I  had  cited  a 
page  or  two,  and  had  not  room  for  more. 
Why  do  you  not  produce  and  contrast  them 
with  what  I  published,  if  I  have  altered  the 
meaning  of  the  decree?  It  was  of  the  trans- 
lation you  spoke  in  your  former  letter.  You 
asked,  "  do  you  give  it  as  a  literal  and  con- 
tinuous translation?"  I  replied,  "unhesi- 
tatingly I  do.  It  is  as  literal  as  the  sense 
will  bear."  My  abstract  gave  the  unbroken 
meaning  of  the  decree  ;  repeated  inverted 
commas  marked  the  transition  in  the  sen- 
tences; and  what  I  omitted  was' all,  all  in 
my  favour;  and  I  cannot  think  one  reader 
will  believe  you,  until  you  adduce  the  omit- 
ted sentences,  and  show  that  they  affect  the 
meaning  of  my  quotations.  Such  charges 
come  with  poor  grace  from  you,  after  the 
memorable  cases  of  Tertullian  and  Wesley. 

6.  Your  attempt  at  a  reply  to  Bishop  On- 
derdonk's  charge  on  the  rule  of  faith,  is  not 
only  meager  to  the  last  degree,  but  manifests 
a  spirit  unworthy  of  a  Christian  or  a  man. 


nay  see  something  of  the  spirit  of  this  Not  content  with  vilifying  me  in  the  pages 
Council,  which  thus  disposed  of  Huss's  de-  of  your  controversial  letters,  you  have  car- 
nartino-  soul,  "we  devote  your  soul  to  ried  your,  assaults  into  the  preface  ot  the  re- 
infernal  devtls."  (Tuam  animam  de-  view.  The  following  is  a  sample;  alter 
vovemus  diabolis  infernis:)  and,  as  Dupin  speaking  of  me  in  terms  ot  coarse  disrespect, 
informs  us,  the  Bishops  who  were  appointed  I  you  proceed  to  say:  "  But  for  some  months 
bv  the  Council  to  degrade  him,  and  prepare  i  back  there  has  been  a  .considerable  undertone 
him  for  the  civil  arm,    put  on  his   head   a  of  dissatisfaction  among  the  better  informed 


159 


Protestants  generally,  not  excepting  Presby- 
terians themselves."  "  Even  some  of  the 
Protestant  clergy  did  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  Mr.  Breckinridge  was  not  'the  man' 
that  should  have  been  selected."  And 
again,  "  His  (the  Bishop's)  charge  has  been 
received  as  a  supplement,  if  not  a  substitute, 
to  the  attempts  of  Mr.  Breckinridge."  In 
your    letter  No.    17,  you    have    also    said: 

*' a  recent  charge,    'the  rule  of  faith,' 

which  without  professing  to  be,  is  generally 
regarded  as  a  prop  to  the  weakness  of  your 
arguments,  in  opposition  to  my  reasoning  on 
the  same  subject." 

Now  Sir,  I  have  long  since  frankly  owned 
to  you,   that    in   the   evangelical    Protestant 
churches  there   are  many  men  who  are  far 
better  fitted  than  myself,  by  learning,  talents, 
age,  piety,  and   pursuits,  to  meet  you  in  this 
discussion.     But  do  you   reflect   that  every 
effort  to   disparage   my  qualifications,    still 
farther  degrades  yourself?     If  a  youth,  who 
spends  half  his  life  in  the  stage  coach,  and 
who  holds  so  humble  a  rank  amidst  the  con- 
stellation of  Protestant  ministers,  finds  it  no 
hard  task  to  expose  and  confound  the  fash- 
ionable,  learned,  and  powerful  Mr.  Hughes, 
then  either  the  cause  of  Catholicity  is  so  des- 
perate that  the  best  powers  of  its  priesthood 
cannot  sustain  it  against  the  feeblest  essays 
of  Protestants,  or  else  the  hero  of  their  cause 
is  only  a  garrulous  Daw,  and   has  been  re- 
nowned like  Goliah,  only  for  want  of  a  trial. 
_  May  I  here  ask  of  you  evidence  of  so  "  con- 
siderable   an    undertone    of    dissatisfaction 
among  better  informed  Protestants,  general- 
ly,  and     even    among    Presbyterians,    and 
some  of  the  Protestant  clergy?"     Will  you 
favour     me    with     one   respectable    name, 
from  all   these   classes?     For    every   such   I 
will  return  testimonies  the  most   ample  and 
multifarious,  and  bring  the  highest  authority 
directly    falsifying   all   these   unworthy    in- 
sinuations.     Besides,   can  you  honestly  say 
that  the  Bishop's  charge  is   generally   re- 
garded as  a  prop  to"  the  weakness  of  my 
arguments?     Have  you  gathered  the  public 
mind  so  largely?     Does  the  public,  generally 
call  my  arguments  weak?    Have  you  learn- 
ed in  four  weeks,  (the  age  of  the  charge) 
what  the  community  think  of  the  reason  tot 
delivering  it?     Must  not  every  one  see  with 
what    unpardonable  laxity  you    venture  to 
speak?  Your  little  world  of  satellites  may  tell 
you  so!     But  St.  John's  is  not  our  country. 
I  could  give  you  another  public  sentiment, 
but  I   will  not  imitate  your  vain  boasting. 
You  shall  hear  it  for  yourself,  as  it  gathers 
»n  a  returning  tide  from  the  limits  of  the 


land.  In  the  mean  time,  be  admonished  that 
there  is  no  collusion  between  the  Bishop  and 
myself.  I  have  not  the  honour  even  of  a  per- 
sonal acquaintance  with  him.  Nor  must 
you  think  that  the  nation  will  hold  its  breath, 
and  the  Protestant  press  stand  still,  while 
you  swagger  through  the  pompous  rounds  of 
arrogant  and  empty  essays  on  the  rule  of 
faith.  Again,  the  Catholic  press  in  this  coun- 
try teems  with  parallel  discussions  of  the 
controversy  now  in  progress.  I  have  been 
personally  attacked  by  one  of  your  papers; 
and  the  Catholic  Herald  itself  is  continually 
publishing  some  thing  intended  to  bear  upon 
our  controversy.  In  a  word,  a  new  era 
has  come  in  our  country.  The  American 
people  will  promptly  see,  "who  the  serpent 
is"  (to  use  your  own  illustration)  "  that  stings 
the  bosom  that  warms  it."  They  will  hence- 
forth know  where  to  send  their  children  for 
education,  and  when  to  contribute  in  gene- 
rous and  abused  confidence,  to  build  the 
schools,  and  convents,  and  chapels,  that  are 
to  train  the  children  to  call  their  parents  he- 
retics; and  are  arising  to  re-establish  a  eli- 
gion  which  never  did,  never  will,  and  never 
can,  permit  a  free  government,  or  religious  to- 
leration. The  people  are  awake  or  awaking; 
and  you  must  change  your  system,  or  lose 
your  prize. 

7.  As  to  Wesley,  your  defence  so  sadly 
labours,  that  comment  seems  unnecessary. 
Your  explanation  has  turned  stales-evidence 
against  you. 

If  space  were  not   wanting,   much   power-' 
ful  matter  might  be  adduced   in  exposure  of 
your  treatment   of  him.     Mr.  Hughes  savs, 
Wesley  was;  the   public  defender   of   "the 
Protestant  Association."     Wesley  says,  "J 
have  not  one  line  in  defence  of  the  associa- 
tion, either  in  Loudon,  or  elsewhere."    Mr. 
Hughes   says,   "  It  never  was  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic  maxim,   (that  no  faith  is   to  be  kept 
with  heretics)   except   when    Protestant   ca- 
lumny made  it  so."     Wesley  says,  "the  last 
volume  (of  Labbe's  Book  of  Councils)  con- 
tains a  particular  account  of  the  Council  of 
Constance,  one  of  whose  decrees,  p.  169,  is, 
".that  heretics  ought  to  be  put  to  death,  not- 
withstanding the    public    faith    engaged    to 
them  in  the  most  solemn  manner.     (Non  ob- 
stantibus  salvis  conductibus  Imperatoris,  Re- 
gum,  &c.)     Whosoever,  therefore,  would  re- 
mark upon   it  (his   late  letter,)   to  any  pur- 
pose, must  prove  three  things:  (1.)  That  the 
decree  of  the  Council  of  Constance  publicly 
made,  has  been    publicly    disclaimed.     (2.) 
That  the  Pope  has  not  power  to  pardon  sins, 
or  to  dispense  with  oaths,  vows,  and  pro- 


160 


mises.  And  (3,)  that  no  priest  has  power  to 
pardon  sins."  These  you  never  can  prove; 
yet  until  you  do,  you  have  left  an  unanswer- 
ed argument,  which  will; last  as  long  as  the 
writings  and  memory  of  Wesley. 

7.  As  to  your  allusion  to  our  domestic 
slavery,  I  fully  accord  with  you  in  the  senti- 
ment, that  it  is  a  great  national  crime,  and 
a  great  national  calamity.  Rut  then  the 
question  for  you  to  answer  is  this:  The 
Pope's  Bull  consigned  heretics  to  slavery, 
in  the  name  of  God  and  the  Church.  Had 
he  the  right  to  do  this  ?  If  the  State 
sins  in  allowing  slavery,  may  the  Roman 
church  encourage  and  incite   to   it,   and   be 


which  it  is  not  as  apparent  as  the  light  were 
delivered  and  instituted  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  Apostles."  4tIn  the  days  of 
the  Apostles  (to  tell  you  the  truth,  but  you 
must  be  silent)  and  for  several  years  after 
them  there  was  no  mention  made  of  either 
pope  or  cardinal — there  were  none  of  these 
large  revenues  belonging  to  the  bishops  and 
priests,  no  sumptuous  Temples  were  raised; 
there  were  no  monasteries,  priors,  or  abbots, 
much  less  any  of  these  doctrines,  these 
laws,  these  constitutions,  nor  this  sovereign- 
ty, which  we  now  exercise  over  people  and 
nations."  "  And  here  you  must  awake  and 
exert  all  your  force  to  hinder  as  much  as  you 


guiltless?  Is  such  a  church  infallible  ?    This   can,  the  Gospel  from  being;  read  (especially 
is  the  question.  in  the  vulgar  tongue,)  in  all  the  cities  which 

8.   As  to  the  rule  of  faith,  you  say  "the   are  under  your  dominion.      Let  that  little  of 


subject  is  fairly  exhausted,  by  your  unex- 
pected declaration,  that  private  interpreta- 
tion is  not  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith." 
Unexpected!  Strange  language  at  the  close 
of  a  discussion,  when  in  the  first  column  of 
my  first  letter,  five  months  since,  I  gave  this 
definition  of  our  rule  rule  of  faith,  viz: 

"  The  word  of  God  as  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments." It  is  to  this  definition  I  have  ad- 
hered. By  your  own  admission,  then  you 
have  evaded  the  real  Protestant  rule  of  faith, 
and  argued  against  its  abuses  alone!  And 
strange  to  tell,  you  have  never  to  this  day 
given  a  definition  of  your  rule  of  faith; 
and  the  story  of  the  Shepherds,  and  the 
rogue's  mark,  applies  to  it  as  directly  this 
day,  as  it  did  three  months  ago. 

At  the  close  of  my  last  letter  I  intro- 
duced many  extracts  from  the  famous  letter  of 
the  cardinals  to  Pope  Paul  the  Sd,  showing 
the  necessity  of  a  reformation  in  the  Church 
of  Rome.  Let  us  proceed  to  other  testimo- 
nies. The  next  I  cite  is  also  on  Romish  au- 
thority— being  the  famous  letter  of  the  three 


it  which  they  have  in  the  mass  serve  their  turn, 
nor  suffer  any  mortal  to  read  any  thing  more; 
for  so  long  as  men  were  content  with  that  lit- 
tle, things  went  to  your  mind,  but  grew  worse 
and  worse  from  that  time,  that  they  common-  ._ 
ly  read  more.  This,  in  short,  is  the  book,  that 
has  beyond  all  others,  raised  those  storms 
and  tempests,  in  which  we  are  almost  driven 
to  destruction.  And  really  whoever  shall 
diligently  weigh  the  Scripture,  and  then 
consider  all  the  things  that  are  usually  done 
in  our  churches,  will  find  there  is  great  dif- 
ference betwixt  them — and  that  this  doctrine 
of  ours  is  very  unlike,  and  in  many  things 
quite  repugnant  to  it.''  This  letter  is  fur- 
nished by  Verjerius,  and  Wolfius,  and  is 
translated  at  large  by  Dr.  Claggett  of  Gray's 
Inn. 

Many  years  before  this,  the  1st  Council  of 
Pisa  had  decreed  a  Reformation.  The  Coun- 
cil of  Constance  resolved  that  a  reformation 
was  necessary,  and  enumerated  nearly  twen- 
ty items,  one  on  Simony,  and  another  on 
Indulgences,  &c.  &tc.  in  which  it  was  called 
for.     The  Council  of  Basil,  and  the  2d  Pisan 


bishops  at  Bononia,  written  to  the  Pope  (at  i  Council  also  decreed  a  reformation  neces- 
his  request,  and  containing  counsel  for  thejsary.  One  of  these  at  least  is  conceded  to 
establisment  of  the  Church,)  after  the  Re-  be  a  general  council,  confirmed  by  a  pope, 
formation  had  begun.  This  letter  covers  I  Now  if  the  decrees  of  a  general  Council,  con- 
nearly  six  folio  pages,  and  you  will  scarcely  firmed  by  a  Pope  (as  you  say)  be  infallible, 
expectits  entire  publication.  TheBishops  say  then  a  reformation  was  infallibly  necessary; 
"  The  Lutherans  receive  and  confess  all  the  and  if  such  a  decree  be  an  article  of  faith, 
articles  of  the  Athanasian,  Nicene,  and  Apos-nhen  it  is  an  article  of  faith  that  a  refor- 
ms creed.''''  "  And  these  Lutherans  refuse  to   mation  was  necessary. 


admit  any  doctrine  but  that  alone  which  hath 
the  Prophets,  Christ  and  his  Apostles  for  its 
authors,  and  wish  that  all  men  would  be  con- 
tent with  those  few  things  that  were  observ- 
ed in  the  Apostles'  times,  or  immediately 
alter;  and  would  imitate  the.  ancient  church- 


To  these  testimonies  I  might  add  almost 
innumerable  authorities  from  the  prelates  and 
other  writers  of  the  church  of  Rome. .Having-,, 
not  room  for  this,  I -««H%r  you   in  fine  to  the 

"  CENTUM  GRAVAMINA,  Or  HUNDRED  GRIEVAN-  J 

ces,  of  Germany,"  presented  in  a  memorial, 


es,  and  not  think  of  receiving  any  traditions,    to  the  Pope,   by  the    diet  of  Nuremburg  in 


161 


1523,  the  very  era  of  the  Reformation.  Many 
years  before,  the  Emperor  of  Germany  join- 
ing the  King  of  France  in  calling  for  Reform, 
drew  up  ten  grievances,  the  8th  of  which 
was  that  "  new  indulgences  had  been  granted, 
and  old  ones  revoked  and  suspended,  merely  to 
squeeze  out  -money."  About  this  time,  (as  Du- 
pin  a  Roman  Catholic  historian  says)  "  Pope 
Alexander  VI.  died  Aug.  17th,  1503,  fo/  the 
poison  which  he  had  prepared  for  another, 
loaded  with  the  iniquities  of  himself  and  His 
natural  son  Caesar  Borgia.''  But  by  1522, 
the  ten  grievances  had  grown  to  one  hundred. 
Some  of  these  were  as  follows:  (see  Dupin  on 
this  subject:) 

1st.  Too  many  human  constitutions  which  they  {the 
Papacy)  dispensed  with  for  money. 

2d.  Indulgences  were  become  an  insupportable 
yoke,  by  which  much  money  was  squeezedsout  of  the 
Germans,  piety  destroyed,  and  a  door  set  open  to  all 
sorts  of  crimes — because  by  that  means  men  are  freed 
from  punishment,  for  money,-  that  the  sums  gathered 
by  these  indulgences,  was  consumed  by  the  Popes  in 
maintaining  the  luxury  of  their  relations  and  family, ■ 
that  the  stations  and  indulgences  granted  to  certain 
churches  were  not  less  scandalous, , nor  did  less  injury 
to  the  poor." 

10th.  The  encroachments  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical Judges  in  lay  (mark  it)  lay  causes,  and 
their  malversations. 

11th.  Exactions  of  the  clergy  for  sacra- 
ments, burials,  masses,  &c,  and  even  for 
licenses  to  keep  concubines. 

These  may  serve  as  specimens  of  the 
whole  hundred.  Observe,  these  were  com- 
plaints by  a  Roman  Catholic  Emperor, 
Charles  V.;  and  a  Roman  Catholic  Diet; 
and  the  account  is  taken  from  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic historian.  These  testimonies  added 
to  those  given  at  the  close  of  my  last  letter, 
plainly  show  that  a  Reformation  was  neces- 
sary. We  shall  prove  still  farther  hereafter, 
God  willing,  that  this  Reformation  was  need- 
ed in  faith,  as  well  as  morals;  in  the  wor- 
ship of  the  church,  in  its  head,  and  in  its 

MEMBERS. 

Now  the  history  of  the  church  plainly 
shows,  that  the  Popes  and  Councils  did  not, 
and  would  not,  attempt  the  necessary  reform. 
The  very  assumption  of  Infallibility,  while 
persisted  in,  renders  all  essential  reform  in- 
consistent and  absurd;  unnecessary  and  im- 
possible. Hence  the  corruptions  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  in  doctrine,  morals,  and 
essential  worship,  have  been  perpetuated 
from  age  to  age.  Hence  when  you  call 
yourselves  unchangeable,  you,  by  confession, 
and  as  an  article  of  faith,  declare  against  all 
reformation:  and  hence,  though  like  the 
camel  eon,  you  take  the  lights  and  shades  of 


the  objects  around  you,  in  different  countries, 
still   you  are  in  essence  the    same   church, 

UNREFORMED  AND  UNREFORMABLE,  BOTH  NOW 

and  for  ever.  Wherefore  the  voice  of 
God,  speaking  in  his  providence,  in  your 
history,  and  his  holy  word,  called  upon 
every  lover  of  truth  and  holiness  to  fly  from 
your  communion,  saying,   come  out  of  her 

MY  PEOPLE,  THAT  YE  BE  NOT  PARTAKERS 
OF  HER  SINS,  AND  THAT  YE  RECEIVE  NOT 
OF  HER  PLAGUES  ;  FOR  HER  SINS  HAVE 
REACHED  UNTO  HEAVEN,  AND  GOD  HATH 
REMEMBERED     HER     INIUUITIES.    (ReV.     Xviii. 

4>   5-  ) 

It  was  in  obedience  to  this  divine  call  that 
the  illustrious,  and  ever  memorable  "  Refor- 
mation," as  it  is  emphatically  styled,  was  at 
first  effected.  This  Reformation  was  not 
the  introduction  of  a  new  religion;  but  the 
restoration  of  the  old,  as  found  in  the  word 
of  God,  as  preached  by  Christ,  and  his  Apos- 
tles; as  held  by  the  earliest  writers,  and  pro- 
fessed in  the  creed  called  the  Jipostles:  that 
primitive  Christianity,  >diich  was  gradually 
and  greatly  perverted,  and  corrupted  by  the 
rise  and  establishment  of  the  Papacy,  and 
was  more  anrr  more  abused  by  the  church  of 
Rome  until  the  1 6th  century. 

To  the  question  often  put  to  Protestants, 
"  Where  was  your  religion  before  Luther's" 
we  may  answer  with  a  youthful  reformer, 
"  Where  was  your  face  before  it  was  wash- 
ed?"   or   if  you    prefer    this,  "  Where   was 


your  religion  before  the  Council  of  Nice?" 
and  where  was  it,  when  the  Pope  of  Rome 
signed  the  Arian  creed,  and  the  chief  part  of 
the  church  adopted  it?  Protestantism  is  a 
new  name  for  the  Catholicism  of  antiquity; 
irl  contrast  with  Romanism,  or  the  absurd 
term  Roman  Catholicism.  This  name  was 
given  to  the  Reformers,  who  protested  in 
1529  against  the  unjust  decisions  of  the 
Diet  of  Spires.  Protestants,  properly  so 
called,  are  Reformers,  as  their  Lord  was  of 
the  corruptions  of  the  Jews;  and  are  heretics 
as  Paul  and  Peter  were,  in  coming  out  from 
that  ancient  but  erring  people. 

That  Protestants  are  not  innovators  is 
virtually  confessed  by  Romanists,  and  ap- 
pears from  this,  that  we  hold  to  the  Bible 
as  the  only  rule  of  faith;  whereas  they  add 
to  it  many  things,  as  Traditions,  Apochry- 
pha,  and  the  interpretations  of  their  Councils. 
We  hold  to  Christ's  headship  over  the 
church;  they  add  to  it  the  headship  of  the 
Pope.  We  hold  to  two  sacraments;  they 
add  five  more.  We  hold  to  the  alone  merits 
of  Chrisfs  death,  and  the  one  only  sacrifice 
of  Christ;  they  add  other,  and  human  me- 


162 


rits  to  Christ's  merits,  and  profanely  pretend 
to  sacrifice  him  anew  every  day  in  the  Mass. 
ft  e  hold  to  concession  to  God;  they  add  auri- 
cular confession.  We  hold  that  Christ's 
church  cannot  fail;  they  add  that  they  as 
the  church  are  infallible.  In  a  word,  not  to 
mention  many  such  distinctions,  their  sys- 
tem is  like  a  great  wen  on  a  man's  head, 
which  has  appeared  upon  the  church;  and 
though  growing  out  of,  and  cleaving  to  the 
true  church,  is  not  the  true  church;  but 
a  corrupt  and  vicious  excrescence  which  has 
encumbered  it  for  ages,  ana  will  at  last  be 
cut  off! 

Protestantism  is  not  a  novelty,  but  became 
another  name  for  Christianity  in  western  Eu- 
rope, marking  an  era  when  religion  and  learn- 
ing and  liberty  revived.  Romanism  is  a  novel- 
ty; the  parent  of  ignorance,  corruption  of  truth, 
and  oppression.  There  are  no  less  than  twelve 
new  articles  of  faith  in  the  creed  of  Pius  IV. 
manufactured  or  adopted  by  the  Council  of 
Trent  in  the  16th  century  of  the  Christian  era; 
and  ascending  from  age  to  afe,  you  may  dis- 
tinctly note  when  Purgatory,  Transubstantia- 
tion,  Indulgences,  &c.&c.  were  first  broached 
and  legalized.  And  while  *fhe  Protes- 
tants recalled  primeval  Christianity,  in  Eu- 
rope, there  were  churches  scattered  over 
large  regions  of  Asia,  and  Africa,  some  of 
which  were  never  subject  to  the  church  of 
Rome,  as  the  Syrian  Christians,  and  others 
protested  against  many  of  the  false  doctrines, 
and  repelled  the  despotism  of  the  Roman 
Hierarchy,  as  the  Armenians  in  central  Asia, 
and,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  the  Greek 
church  at  large.  Add  to  this,  that  the  Albi- 
genses  and  Waldenses  did  for  ages,  and,  in 
the  very  heart  of  Europe,  like  the  burning 
bush  which  Moses  saw,  survive  your  fiery 
persecutions,  and  protest  almost  in  our  lan- 
guage, against  the  papal  errors.  These  peo- 
ple may  be  traced  up  for  many  ages  before 
the  days  of  Luther;  indeed  Rhinerius,  a  Ro- 
man Inquisitor,  tells  us,  that  some  have  car- 
ried them  up  to  the  Apostles'  times. 

Roman  Catholics  profess  to  be  the  only 
true  church,  and  that  Protestants  are  schis- 
matics. But  is  it  not  notorious,  that  in 
your  church  there  was  a  great  schism  in 
the  14th  century,  so  that,  for  the  spare  of 
fifty  years,  there  were  sometimes  two  and 
sometimes  three  popes;  and  scenes  were 
acted  out  by  their  Holinesses  the  contin- 
ued occurrence  of  which  rent  the  church  and 
agitated  Europe ;  and  the  very  recital  is 
enough  to  make  one  shudder.  And  where 
was  the  Greek  Church?  Did  it  not  break  off 
from  you, and  protest  against  many  of  the  very 


errors  and  corruptions  which  we  reject? 
And  with  her  did  not  whole  nations  irreparably 
forsake  the  church  of  Rome?  Why  did  not 
your  infallible  rule  of  faith  "  settle  these  dis- 
putes^ which  rent  your  church  so  often  and 
so  long;  which  tore  from  you  so  much  of  Asia 
and  eastern  Europe  on  the  one  hand,  and 
half  western  Europe  by  the  Reformation  on 
the  other?  And  did  not  the  President  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  say,  that  the  depravation  and 
corruption  of  discipline  and  morals  in  the 
church  of  Rome,  was  in  a  great  measure  the 
cause  and  original  of  all  those  schisms  and 
heresies  which  then  troubled  the  church? 

When,  therefore,  you  call  for  a  definition 
of  "  The  Protestant  Religion,"  (as  the 
time  to  give  it  has  now  arrived,)  I  reply,  it 
is  the  Religion  of  the  Reformation,  in  con- 
tradistinction from  the  Roman  Catholic  Re- 
ligion, as  it  concerns  doctrine,  and  morality, 
government,  discipline,  and  worship.  It  is 
the  religion  which  is  exclusively  derived 
from  and  consistent  with  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures   AS     THE     ONLY     INFALLIBLE    RULE   OF 

faith  and  practice;  and  which  protests 
against  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  To  be  more  particular,  we 
protest  against  the  universal  supremacy  of  the 
Pope;  against  infallibility,  purgatory,  and  in- 
dulgences; against  transubstantiation,  the  sa- 
crifice of  the  Mass,  and  communion  in  one 
kind;  against  the  satisfaction  and  merit  of 
creatures,  not  duly  honouring  the  atonement 
and  righteousness  of  our  divine  Saviour; 
against  penance,  auricular  confession,  abso- 
lution, and  extreme  unction;  against  the 
substitution  of  external  services  and  rites 
for  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  religion 
of  the  heart;  against  worshipping  the  host, 
images,  relics,  saints,  and  angels;  against 
prohibiting  the  Bible  to  the  people,  prayers 
and  other  worship  in  an  unknown  tongue, 
the  doctrine  of  intention,  innovations  on  the 
sacraments  as  to  number  and  administration, 
the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  and  monasticism; 
against  the  manifold  superstitions,  and  im- 
moralities of  the  church;  against  sanctuary 
for  crimes,  exemption  of  subjects  from  alle- 
giance, and  priests  from  obedience  to  magis- 
trates; against  the  oppression,  persecution, 
and  exclusive  salvation  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  These  are  theleading  errors  and  evils 
against  which  we  protest;  and  I  am,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  prepared  to  prove  that  the  Pro- 
testant Religion  (in  contradistinction  from 
the  religion  holding,  teaching,  and  practising 
these  things,)  is  the  Religion  of  Christ. 

Especially  do  I  stand  ready  to  show,  that 
the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  is  a  usurpation, 


103 


not  founded  in  Scripture,  oppressive  to 
man,  anol  injurious  to  Christ,  the  only  head 
of  the  church;  that  Purgatory  is  a  fiction, 
and  ruinous  to  the  souls  of  men;  that  Indul- 
gences are  "a  bundle  of  licenses  to  commit 
sin,"  and  the  true  moral  of  Purgatory;  that 
transubstantiation  is  a  novelty,  an  impos- 
sibility, and  an  absurdity;  that  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  Mass  is  an  impiety,  and  the  worship 
of  the  host  idolatrous;  and  so  in  order,  if  you 
can  venture  to  meet  me.  And  as  you 
charge  me  so  pertinaciously  with  being  the 
assailant,  I  will  now  claim  the  privilege 
which  you  thus  force  upon  me;  especially 
as  heretofore  you  have  chosen  your  own 
ground,  and  called  on  me  to  follow  where 
you  led  in  the  discussion.  This  is  the  more 
reasonable,  since  you  profess  to  belong  to  the 
true  and  the  only  true  church;  and  thus  com- 
ing with  exclusive  salvation,  and  prescrip- 
tive claims,  make  all  other  forms  of  religion 
void;  and  present  the  alternative  of  Catho- 


licism, or  no  religion.  I  shall  therefore  with 
great  freedom  examine  these  high  preten- 
sions. This  is  the  proper  and  natural  order 
of  discussion.  In  this  way  our  reasons  for 
protesting  will  be  fully  brought  to  view;  and 
the  two  systems  presented  in  continued  con- 
trast. 

Yours,  &c.  &c. 

John  Breckinridge. 

P.  S.  I  regret  that  in  attempting  to  injure 
Mr.  Burtt  you  should  expose  yourself. — 
tkBut  he  is  of  age;  and  shall  speak  for  him- 
self." As  to  the  reference,  delicacy,  and 
justice,  ought  to  have  prevented  you  from 
speaking  as  you  have  of  Dr.  Wylie's  reason 
for  declining.  Did  not  a  sense  of  propriety 
hinder  me,  I  also  could  make  inferences 
from  his  dignified,  and  honourable  letter.  I 
do  heartily  wish  that  he  would  yet  consent 
to  give  his  decision  on  the  score  of  referred 
topics.  ,  J.  B. 


CONTROVERSY......N°.  21. 


ISbbIc  oi'Failh. 


Philadelphia,  June  2lst,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — I  have  read  your  last  letter 
with  all  attention,  and  shall  now  proceed  to 
notice  such  parts  of  it  as  require  to  be  an- 
swered. It  begins  thus,  "  The  celebrated 
Pascal,  himself  a  Romanist."  Pascal,  Rev. 
Sir,  was  a  Jansenist,  and  as  such,  was  not 
a  "Romanist,"  nor  even  a  Catholic.  This 
mistake  of  jours  is  common  among  Protes- 
tants, even  those  who  ought  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  difference.  As  to  his  Provincial 
Letters,  critics  of  all  parties  are  agreed  that 
they  were  written  in  a  spirit  of  satirical  en- 
mity towards  the  Jesuits.  Racine  says  they 
are  nothing  but  a  "comedy,"  the  characters 
of  which  were  selected  from  Convents  and  the 
Sarbonne.  Voltaire,  who  was  certainly  no 
friend  to  the  Jesuits,  says  that  the  whole  work 
is  a  misrepresentation,  in  consequence  of  the 
author's  attributing  "  artfully  (adroitement) 
to  the  ivhole  Society  the  extravagant  opi- 
nions, set  forth  by  a  few  of  its  members  in 
Spain  and  Flanders."  (Volt.  Siecle  de 
Louis  XIV.)  So  much  for  your  first  sen- 
tence. 

2.  If  I  have  charged  you  with  "garbling 
authorities,"  and  making  assertions  which 
are  "  untrue,"  I  always  supported  the  charge 
with  proofs,  which  remain  unanswered. 
The  first  sentence  of  the  2d  paragraph  is 
equally  unfounded  in  the  truth.  It  is  as  fol- 
lows, "your  Bible,  your  public  Prayers,  your 
Breviary  and  Mass  book,  your  Catechism,  de- 
crees of  Councils,  and  Bulls  of  Popes,  being 
in  a  dead  language."  Now,  our  Bibles  are 
in  English,  our  public  prayers  are  in  Eng- 
lish, our  Catechisms  are  in  English,  our 
Mass  book  is  in  English;  and  how  can  you 

say   that  they  are  in  a   "dead  language" 

when  any  one  may  call  at  the  Catholic 
bookstore  of  Mr.  Cummiskey  of  this  city, 
and  purchase  the  very  books  you  mention, 
all  in  English?  If  by  such  assertions 
your  "credit  suffers,"  as  you  sav,  do  not, 
I  pray  you,  throw  the  blame  on  "me.  Ca- 
tholics have  published  more  editions  of 
the  Scriptures  in  English,  within  the  last 
thirty  years,  than  any  other  denomination  of 

A* 


j  Christians  in  the  United  States.  This  fact 
proves  how  far  you  are  from  being  correct, 
when  you  assert  that  our  "  Bibles,"  are  "  in 
a  dead  language."  It  proves  also  how  far 
Protestants  are  deceived  by  their  blind  cre- 
dulity, and  their  prejudices,  when  they  say 
that  Catholics  are  not  allowed  to  read  the 
Scriptures.  The  first  edition  would  be  still 
on  the  booksellers  shelves,  if  there  existed 
such  a  prohibition — since  Protestants  never 
purchase  our  Bibles. 

3.   The  Bull   of  Innocent  VIII.     In  your 
letter  No.  16,  you  stated   that  it  was  in  the 
University  of  Cambridge;  and  repeated  twice 
that  it  was  issued  in  1477.      You  subsequent- 
ly admitted  your  mistake  of  ten  years,  as  to 
the  time;  but,  nothing  daunted,  you  "dared 
me  to  deny  it."     I  did  deny  it.     Then  you 
proceed  to  the  "-show  of  proof,"  and  quote 
the   annals  of  Baronius.     Does  he  say  that 
such    a   Bull    exists?     No.     The    quotation 
merely  testifies,  that  Albertus  Cataneius  was 
commissioned  to   preach  a   crusade   a°ainst 
the  Waldenses;  who,    as    you  yourself    ac- 
knowledge,   had'  already    '"taken   vp    arms 
and   murdered   those    who    had  been  sent 
among  then-. — or  as  you   express   it,   "slew 
his  servant."     This  does  not  prove  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Bull  in  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge.     And  after  having  made  'the  asser- 
tion,   and   "dared  me  to  deny  it,"  is  it  not 
strange  that  you  should  adduce  such  a  vao-ue 
citation,  and" then   say— "here   is   the  Bull, 
Brief,  or  whatever  I  please  to  call  it."     Be- 
sides, the  annals   of  Baronius,  come  down 
only  to  the  year  1198;  and  yet  you  quote  his 
authority  for  a  fact  which  should  have  taken 
place  in  1487!!!     How  is  this  ? 

4.  I  must  give  you  great  credit  for  the  inge- 
nious manner  in  which  you  get  over  the  per- 
secution of  the  Catholics  of  Maryland,  by  the 
Presbyterians.  The  persecutors  were  Puri- 
tans. ("Mark,  reader,  not  Presbyterians, 
Puritans.")  This  important  distinction  is  to 
show,  I  suppose,  that  the  persecutors  of  Ge- 
neva were  Calvinists;  those  of  Holland,  Go- 
marists;  those  of  New  England,  Congrega- 
lionalists;  and  those  of  Scotland  and  Eng- 
land, in  the  time  of  Charles  the  first,  as  well 


166 


as  their  brethren  of  Maryland,  Puritans. 
But  pray,  where  were  the  Presbyterians,  all 
this  time?  When  children  disown  their  pa- 
rentage, it  is  a  sign  they  are  ashamed  of  it. 

5.   As  to  the  case  of  John    Huss,    the  au- 
thority of  Lenfant  rs  no  better  than  that  of 
Mr.  Wesley  or  your  own.     He  was  the  son 
of  a  Calvinistic  minister,  and  was  brought  u jj 
to    be    a  Calvinistic    minister   himself.      In 
1727,  he  published  what  he  called  a  history 
of  the  Council  of  Constance,   held  one  hun- 
dred years  before  the  Reformation.     And  it 
was  such  a  production,  as  might   have  been 
expected  from  the  author  of  the   "history  of 
Pope  Joan,"    which    he   published  in   1694. 
But  he  lived  long  enough  to   be  ashamed  of 
having  treated  with  grave  authorship,  so  ab- 
surd  and    calumnious    a   fable.     These  few 
remarks  are  sufficient  Rev.  Sir,  to  show  your 
readers,   that  your  own  authority  would  be 
quite  as  unimpeachable  against  the  Council 
of  Constance,  as  that  of  Lenfant.     He  was 
a  bitter  enemy  of  the  Catholic  church.     As 
to  the  Safe-Conduct  given  by  the  Emperor, 
I  have  already,  in  my  last  letter,  established 
its  character,  conditions,  and  circumstances. 
With    reference    to   the    unfortunate     Huss 
himself,    the    Council    condemned    his'  doc- 
trine;   and   degraded    him    as   an    obstinate 
heretic,     from     his     rank     of     Priesthood. 
But  having  done  this,  it  declared  that   its 
powers   as  a  spiritual  tribunal  extended  no 
farther.     The   civil   laws   of  the  age  and  of 
the  city  of  Constance  did  the  rest.     I  have 
the  acts  of  that  Council  now  before  me,  and 
I  defy  enmity  itself  to  make  any  thing  more 
out   of    them.     As    to    the   "  devils    paint- 
ed on  his  paper  mitre,"  it  is  one  of  those  lit- 
tle tales   by  which  Protestant  children  are 
frightened  into  hatred   against  Catholics; — 
the   germ   of   prejudice  is   planted   in  their 
minds; — so  that  when  they  have  grown  up, 
they  are  the  unconscious  victims  of  the  "radi- 
cal delusion"  of  Protestantism,  and  imagine 
that  their  religious  opinions,  no  matter  ivhat, 
are   taken   from  the  pure  word  of  God — the 
Bible  alone. 

6.  In  paragraph  4th  of  your  letter,  you 
quote  the  words  of  Bellarmine  "sunt  procul 
dw&ioextirpandi"  to  show  that  they  were  not 
"  falsified,"  as  I  had  stated.  But  you  know 
that  we  both  write  from  the  corrected  proof 
of  each  others  letters;  which  is  furnished 
several  days  before  the  paper  is  regularly 
issued.  You  know  further  that  in  the  proof 
the  passage  was  as  I  stated — and  candor 
should  have  induced  you  to  say  that  you  had 


escaped  my  notice.  You  knew  that  such 
disingenuousness  must  come  to  light  after 
one  short  week — and  that  you  ought  not  to 
have  claimed  the  advantages  of  a  mistake, 
into  which  your  oum  false  citation  of  the  pas- 
sage had  betrayed  your  opponent,  although 
you  had  afterwards  corrected  it. 

7.   In   your   paragraph   No.  4,  you    again 
admit  that  you  had  garbled  the  passage  from 
the  4th  Council  of  Lateran,  which,  however, 
you   had   unhesitatingly    pronounced     to    be 
"  continuous,  '     Of  course  there  is  no  longer 
any  issue   between   us,  on  that  subject.     As 
to  what  you    call    "  the  memorable  cases  of 
Tertullian  and  Wesley,"  I  have  already  dis- 
posed of  them  by  proving  all  I  had  asserted. 
9.  Your  6th  paragraph  is  a  vindication  for- 
sooth of  Bishop  Qnderdonk's  Charge  on  the 
Rule  of  Faith,    and  a  volley  of  personality 
discharged  at  myself.     The  former,  it  seems 
to  me,  was  in  you,  a  work  of  supererogation; 
and  the  latter  is  a  species  of  literary  warfare 
in  which  I  am  determined  not  to  mingle.     I 
began  this  controversy  to  reason,  but  not  to 
quarrel,    with    you.     And   whether  you   are 
pleased  to  represent  me  as  "  the  fashionable, 
learned,  and    powerful  Mr.   Hughes,''  or  as 
'.'  a  garrulous  daw,"  is  a  matter  of  trivial  im- 
portance to  the  question,   to  the  public,  and 
myself.     But  I  would  simply  remark,  that  I 
have  not  attempted  to  depreciate  your  talents 
or  qualifications.     In  fact,  the  way  the  world 
goes,  talents  and  qualifications  are  quite  un- 
necessary   for  the    man   who  undertakes  to 
combat  the  Catholic  religion.     The  task  re- 
quires  only  a   hold  and    irresponsible   pen. 
Call  it  "  Popery,"  Romanism,"  "  Supersti- 
tion," "  Idolatry,"  "  Mummery,"  &c.     Call 
the  clergy  of  the  church,  from  the  Cardinal 
down  to  the  Deacon,  a  consolidated  mass  of 
spiritual  knaves,  who  understand  their  parts 
so  ipell,  that  cholera  or  pestilence  may  range 
the  world,  and  not  find  one  of  them  quitting 
his  post,  except  it  be  to  sink  in  the  grave: — in 
a  word,  men   who  never  had  a  good  motive^ 
but  are  always  planning  dark  schemes  against 
the  welfare  of  the   human  race,  for  the  sole 
glory  and  aggrandizement  of  "  Anti-christ" 
— "  even  their  lord    God,  the  Pope."     Call 
the  Catholic  laity,  "ignorant,"  "blind-led,' 
"  priest-ridden"  debased  creatures,  who  dare 
not  read  the  Bible,  nor  even  think,  except  as 
the    Pope    gives  them    permission; — do   all 
this,  and  it  will   be  received  by  the  millions: 
of  Protestants  as  a  highly  satisfactory  and  j 
rational     refutation    of     Catholic    doctrine. 
Now  it  does  not  require  for  all  this,  any  rare 


corrected  the  "falsification"  before  the  paper   combination  of  talents.     And    as   to  yours-, 
went,    finally,    to    press — which    correction  j  Rev.  Sir,  I  have,  so  high  an  opinion  of  them, 


167 


that  I  only  regret  their  not  being  employed 
in  a  better  cause.  If  you  only  knew  the 
Catholic  religion  as  it  is,  I  am  sure  you 
would  not  have  assailed  it  as  you  have  done. 
But  until  God  make  another  Revelation,  he 
will  not  endow  either  men  or  angels  with 
talents  equal  to  the  task  which  you  have 
rashly  undertaken.  This  is  the  true  secret 
}f  that  "  dissatisfaction  among  better  in- 
formed Protestants,"  in  reference  to  the  ac- 
tual issue  of  the  present  controversy;  and 
whilst  they  exaggerate  my  qualifications,  and 
disparage  yours,  they  are  guilty  of  injustice 
to  us  both. 

As  to  the  "considerable  undertone  of  dis- 
satisfaction,'' I  had  reason  to  believe  in  its 
existence,  but  as  you  seem  to  be  sceptical  on 
the  subject,  let  me  suppose  that  I  was  mis- 
taken, and  that  Protestants  generally  are 
perfectly  satisfied  with  the  manner  in  which 
you  have  vindicated  their  rule  of  faith.  But 
this  supposition  also,  has  its  difficulties.  For 
in  the  first  place  the  "  charge''  to  which  you 
refer  was  in  favour  of  the  Protestant  rule,  and 
opposed  to  the  Catholic  principle — and  this, 
pendente  lite !  Neither  do  you,  and  the 
"charge,"  agree  in  your  mode  of  vindication. 
You  deny  that  private  interpretation  "  is  the 
Protestant  rule  of  faith;'' — the  'charge' 
admits  this,  if  I  understand  it — where  it 
says  that  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  "inter- 
preted as  other  ancient  books" — in  the 
exercise,  however,  of  a  discreet  judgment. 
The  charge  teaches  that  according  to  the 
Protestant  rule  "  moral  certainty,  but  not  in- 
fallible certainty,  can  be  attained,"  whereas 
you  agreed  that  an  "  infallible  rule  has  been 
appointed  by  Christ  himself,"  and  contend- 
ed that  this  is  no  other  than  the  Protestant 
rule,  from  which  it  would  follow  that  those 
who  are  guided  by  that  rule,  should  have  an 
"infallible  certainty,"  of  being  right  ; — 
a  conclusion  which  clashes  with  that  of  the 
*  charge!'  Again,  the  Methodist  paper  in 
New  York  called  "  Ziooi's  Advocate,"  by 
way  of  letting  its  readers  judge  for  them- 
selves, as  Protestants  pride  themselves  in  do- 
ing, has  suppressed  all  my  letters  and  publish- 
ed all  yours!  Judge  for  themselves,  indeed ! 
In  contrast  with  this,  look  at  the  Catholic 
paper  published  in  St.  Louis  called  the 
<k  Shepherd  of  the  Valley,"  which  is  so  small 
that  one  of  our  letters  seems  to  eat  it  up,  and 
yet  it  contrives  to  publish  your  letter  entire, 
verbatim  et  literatim;  whilst  it  economi- 
ses space  by  the  curtailment  of  mine!  Again 
still,  why  is  it  that  two  Protestant  papers  in 
this  city  suspended  the  publication  of  the  con- 
troversy after  having  both  announced   that 


they  would  furnish  regular  abstracts  of  the 
arguments  on  both  sides? — And  after  having 
done  so  to  the  number  of  four  or  five  letters? 
Why  is  it  that  every  Catholic  paper  in  the 
country  except  one  (which  publishes  the  dis- 
cussion in  New  York)  spreads  out  to  its  rea- 
ders the  whole  controversy;  your  writings  as 
well  as  mine?  What  does  all  this  look  like 
if  there  is  no  dissatisfaction  among  Pro- 
testants generally  ?  Some  papers  publish- 
ing all  your  letters  and  none  of  mine — and 
others,  rather  than  be  guilty  of  such  unequal 
justice,  cutting  their  own  promises  short,  by 
suspending  the  publication  of  botli !  But  this 
is  not  all  :  many  of  them  have  represented 
my  arguments  against  the  radical  delusion  of 
Protestantism,  as  arguments  against  the  Bi- 
ble! Do  not  these  proceedings,  this  injus- 
tice, this  misrepresentation  and  calumny  ar- 
gue the  evidence  of  dissatisfaction  ? 

In  your  paragraph  7,  you  say  that  Mr. 
Wesley  never  wrote  a  line  in  defence  of  the 
Protestant  Association  in  London  or  else- 
where. In  answer  to  this  I  have  to  say  the 
"association"  itself  was  of  a  different  opi- 
nion. Wesley's  letter  from  which  I  quoted 
was  dated,  Jan.  12,  1780.  And  on  the  17th 
of  February  following,  the  thanks  of  the  "As- 
sociation'' were  voted  to  him  for  his  exertions 
in  the  cause.  But  for  further  particulars  I 
refer  you  to  my  letter  to  a  Wesleyan  Metho- 
dist in  this  paper  as  I  do  not  wish  to  answer 
the  same  arguments  or  objections  coming 
from  two  opponents. 

10.  The  rest  of  your  letter,  down  to  your 
definition  of  the  Protestant  religion,  which  I 
shall  examine  presently,  is  a  description  of 
abuses,  and  of  the  low  state  of  public  morals 
at,  and  previous  to  the  pretended  "  Refor- 
mation." That  there  were  abuses,  and  that 
there  still  may  be  abuses,  is  what  no  man  of 
sense  and  education  will  deny.  But  it  will 
be  perceived,  that  Catholics  themselves  were 
crying  out  for  the  correction  of  these  abuses. 
They  demanded  a  reformation — but  they  did 
not  conceive  that  in  order  to  eltect  it,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  deny  the  existence  of 
free  will  in  man,  as  a  moral  a:^eni,  with 
Luther; — they  did  not  conceive  it  necessa- 
ry to  make  God  the  author  of  sin,  and  the 
slave  of  his  own  foreknowledge,  witi.  Calvin  ; 
they  did  not  conceive  it  necessary,  to  deny 
the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  destroy  the  belief 
of  redemption  through  the  merits  of  his  blood, 
with  Socinus: — and  so  of  the  other  "  Refor- 
mers." This  was  not  the  kind  of  Reforma- 
tion that  they  anticipated.  They  tlesired 
that  men  would  reform  their  lives,  according 
to  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ; — but  the  Pro- 


168 


testant  Reformers  changed  the  religion  of 
Christ,  and  yet  testified,  as  I  shall  prove  in 
its  place,  from  their  own  writing,  that  their 
followers  became  less  moral  and  more  deprav- 
ed than  they  had  been  before  the  change.  As 
for  your  authorities  on  those  abuses,  be 
pleased  to  let  me  know  where  I  shall  find 
them.  For  example,  the  reference  to  the 
"  letter  of  the  three  Bishops  at  Bononia,''  is 
too  vague.  Again  the  testimony  of  "Dr. 
Clagget  of  Gray's  Inn,"  is  no  better  than 
yours  or  that  of  Mr.  M 'Gavin.  He,  a  Pro- 
testant, quotes  from  Wolfius,  another  Pro- 
testant; and  both  together  with  Lenfant, 
Robert  Hall,  and  John  Wesley  may  be  placed 
in  the  same  rank  of  testimony  with  arch- 
bishop "  Usher." 

Altogether,  you  will  be  pleased  to  quote 
the  original  authorities,  and  I  will  do  the 
same,  as  I  have  done  from  the  commence- 
ment. Such  authorities  as  those  just  refer- 
red to,  are  not  a  whit  better  than  your  own 
assertion. 

Before  we  pass  to  another  topic  it  may 
be  proper  for  me  to  tai<e  a  retrospective 
view  of  the  question  which  has  been  under 
discussion,  viz.  the  rule  of  faith.  We  started 
on  the  principle,  that  the  Son  of  God  having 
made  a  revelation  of  divine  truths,  and  hav- 
ing required  the  belief  of  them  as  one  of  the 
conditions  of  our  salvation,  appointed  at  the 
same  time,  an  "  infallible"  means  to  arrive 
at  the  knowledge  of  what  those  divine  truths 
are.  To  accomplish  this,  the  Catholic  church 
has  presarved  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles 
until  this  hour,  the  same  uniform  princi- 
ple of  .religious  guidance.  For  the  proof 
that  the  Catholic  church  in  holding  to  this 
principle,  has  followed  the  rule  appointed  by 
the  Divine  Author  of  Christianity,  I  refer  the 
candid  reader  to  the  evidences  adduced  in 
my  letters  No.  5,  7,  and  9 — from  Scrip- 
ture, history.  Apostolical  and  primitive  usage 
in  the  Christian  church,  and  from  the  very 
necessities  of  the  case.  Let  him  also  see 
whether  in  any  or  all  the  letters  of  my  op- 
ponent, these  evidences,  arguments  and  au- 
thorities have  been  refuted. 

On  the  other  hand  Protestants  have  adopt- 
ed from  their  origin  in  the  1 6th  century,  as 
the  "infallible"  means  of  arriving  at  the 
knowledge  of  those  divine  truths,  which 
Christ  revealed,  the  sacred  writings,  exclu- 
sively, of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  as 
each  understands  them  for  himself.  This 
principle  secures  to  each  minister  the  right 
to  propagate  his  own  conceits,  as  divine 
truths  contained  in  the  Bible — and  conse- 
quently has  given  rise  to  heresy  of  every 


description,  until  it  has  thrown  Protestant 
Christianity  into  a  scene  of  confusion,  con- 
tradiction, inconsistency,  doubt,  indifference 
and  infidelity,  in  which  no  man  can  say  who 
is  right,  or  who  is  wrong.  Is  this  principle  of 
religious  guidance,  "infallible?"  And  if  not, 
who  will  say  that  it  was  established  by  Christ? 

In  my  first  letter  I  laid  down  certain  ar- 
guments to  prove  that  this  principle  is  nei- 
ther infallible  nor  competent  to  the  end  for 
which  a  rule  of  faith  was  instituted  by  the 
Divine  Redeemer.  These  arguments  it  will 
be  admitted  by  the  candid  reader,  have  not  to 
this  day  been  refuted.  The  first  was,  that 
the  Bible  was  not  complete  until  about  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century — and  there- 
fore, could  not  be  the  rule  of  faith  previous 
to  its  completion.  The  2d  was,  that  the  Bi- 
ble no  where  speaks  of  itself  as  the  exclu- 
sive rule  of  faith — and  that,  therefore,  Pro- 
testants have  no  divine  authority  for  this 
assumption.  The  Sd  [was  that  the  Bible 
"  alone?  is  the  Bible  on  "the  shelf" — in 
which  sense  it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  it,  as  a 
rule  of  faith.  Now  the  public  will  be  sur- 
prised to  perceive  that  you  have  given  up 
the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  in  your  last  let- 
ter, except  in  this  identical  and  absurd  sense 
of  the  Bible  on  "  the  shelf."  In  your  epistle 
No.  18,  you  frankly  gave  up  "  private  inter- 
pretation,'' as  not  being  "  the  Protestant  rule 
of  faith."  In  your  la-t  you  tell  me,  that  in 
arguing  against  "  private  interpretation,''  I 
have  argued  "not  against  the  real  Protes- 
tant rule  of  faith,  but  aguinst  its  abuses 
alone!"  You  affect  to  be  surprised  that  I 
was  not  aware  of  this  sooner.  But  I  believe, 
Rev.  Sir,  that  you  are  the  first  Protestant 
writer  that  has  recognised  "  private  interpre- 
tation" as  an  "abuse."  The  real  rule  of 
Protestants  is,  you  tell  us,  "The  word  of  God 
as  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments."  This  is  the  real  rule, 
but  if  men  try  to  understand  these  "  Scrip- 
tures," it  must  be  by  "private  interpretation? 
and  this,  you  tell  us,  is  the"  abusf,"  against 
which  you  say  I  have  been  arguing.  Now 
you  will  not  be  offended,  I  trust,  at  learning 
that  so  far  as  this  admission  goes,  you  are  a 
Catholic.  The  Church  has  always  held  your 
declaration  on  this  point — and  she  has  ever 
taught,  that  "private  interpretation,"  as  it 
is  among  Protestants,  is  an  "abuse." 

My  4th  argument  was  that  the  Bible  alone 
cannot  attest  either  its  authenlicit;/,  inspira- 
tion^ or  meaning — which  is  proved  by  the 
contradictions  which  Protestants  profess  to 
derive  from  it; — and  therefore  is  not  the 
only  rule  of  faith. 


169 


The  5th  was,  that  during  the  first  four 
hundred  years  of  Christianity. the  Bible  was 
not,  and  could  not  be,  the  only  rule  of  faith 
— and  the  proof  is,  that  during  that  interval 
the  Canon  of  Scripture  was  not  universally 
settled  in  the  Church;  and  even  if  it  had 
been,  copies  of  the  sacred  book  could  not  be 
multiplied  for  the  general  wants. 

The  6th  was,  that  since  the  beginning  of 
the  world,  no  controversy  was  ever  decided 
by  the  Bible  alone.'  7th.  That  the  Bi- 
ble perverted  by  "  private  interpretation  " 


fore  they  are  not  the  same.  In  proof  of  the 
premises  of  this  argument,  I  challenge  you  to 
name  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  or  in  the  history 
of  the  whole  human  race,  any  society  of  Chris- 
tians, agreeing  in  doctrines  with  the  authors  of 
the  pretended  Reformation  or  with  any  sect 
that  has  grown  out  of  it.  Consequently  either 
the  religion  of  Christ  was  not  professed  by 
any  society  of  Christians,  until  the  days  of 
Luther; — jr  else,  the  Protestant  religion  is 
not  the  religion  of  Christ.  This  is  a  dilemma 
from  which  escape   is  impossible.      Is  it  not 


in  other  words,  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith   then,  Rev.  Sir,  strange  to  hear  you  answer 
has  given  rise  to  all  the  heresies  that  evening  the  question,   "  where  was  your  religion 


did,  or'do  exist.  8th.  That  in  consequence 
of  its  "  abuse,"  by  private  interpretation,  it 
makes  for  the  Socinian,  as  well  as  for  the 
Calvinist.  9th.  That  by  the  same  "abuse," 
it  compels  a  man  who  is  an  orthodox  Protes- 
tant to  become  heterodox,  if  he  thinks  that  he 
was  wrong,  and  wishes  to  be  right.  10th. 
That  it  reduces  orthodoxy  and  heterodoxy 
to  the .  same  quagmire  of  uncertainty,  in 
which  neither  can  find  any  thing  more 
solid,  as  a  foundation,  than  mere  private 
opinion. 

Thus  it  is,  that  Protestants  by  adopting  a 
false  principle  of  religious  guidance,  have 
unhinged  Christianity,  and  left  infidelity  to 
reap  the  fruits  of  their  rashness.  Now, 
Rev.  Sir,  I  contend  that  these  plain,  com- 
mon sense  arguments  against  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith,  have  not  been  refilled  in  all  you 
have  written.  They  have,  indeed,  been  met 
with  cavil  and  objection;  but  if  cavil  and 
objection  are  to  be  received  as  proof,  then 
the  Atheist  may  triumph.  We  all  ad- 
mit, Catholics  and  Protestants,  the  Bible  to 
be  the  inspired  word  of  God,  but  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  controversy  I  assailed 
'"'private  interpretation,"  as  the  "radical 
delusion  of  Protestantism,"  and  I  am  happy 
to  perceive  that  in  your  last  letter  you  also 
denounce  it  as  "  abuse."  Here  then  we  may 
take  leave  of  the  rule  of  faith  and  proceed  to 
the  second  topic  of  discussion,  which  profes- 
ses to  be  this: 

"Is  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Reli- 
gion or  Christ?" 

To  this  question  I  answer  with  a  full 
sense  of  my  responsibility  both  to  God  and 
my  fellow  men,  that  it  is  not.  And  I  am 
persuaded  that  all  men  who  are  candid,  and 
competent  to  give  due  consideration  to  the 
reasons  I  shall  adduce,  will  arrive  at  the  same 
conclusion. 

1.   The  Protestant  religion  is  only  three 


before  Luther?"    by  asking  another,  "where 
was  your  face  before  it  was  washed  ?" 

2.  Whenever  God  communicated  any  re- 
velation or  new  doctrine  to  mankind,  he 
invariably  gave  to  the  organ  of  that  new 
doctrine,  a  divine  commission  to  speak  in 
his  name;  and  the  power  of  miracles  to 
prove  that  God  had  so  commissioned  him 
to  speak.  This  was  the  case  with  Moses  ; 
this  was  the  case  with  Jesus  Christ  himself, 
during  his  life,  and  with  his  apostles,  after 
his  ascension  into  heaven.  But  the  Protestant 
religion  was  a  new  religion,  since  no  society 
of  Christians  had  professed  its  doctrines  pre- 
vious to  Luther,  and  yet  its  founders  had 
no  divine  commission,  and  no  power  of 
working  miracles  to  show  that  God  had  sent 
them,  for  this  new  work: — Therefore  the 
Protestant  religion  is  not  the  religion  of 
Christ. 

3.  The  religion  of  Christ  consists  of  doc- 
trines which  have  been  revealed,  taught,  and 
believed  as  positive  truths;  whereas  the 
Protestant  religion  consists  of  doctrines 
which  are  variable,  unsettled,  and  which  are 
submitted  and  believed  not  as  positive  truths, 
but  as  mere  opinions  :  therefore  the  Protes- 
tant religion  is  not  the  religion  of  Christ. 

4.  The  Apostles  of  Christianity,  besides  their 
power  of  working  miracles  in  proof  of  their 
having  been  sent,  preached  the  same  divine 
faith  every  where,  without  the  least  variation 
or  disagreement;  whereas  the  Apostles  of 
the  Protestant  religion,  Luther,  Zuinglius, 
Henry  VIII.,  Socinus,  Calvin,  &c,  not  only 
disagreed  in  their  doctrines,  but  denounced 
each  other  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  as 
Heretics  and  deceivers  of  souls.  Therefore 
the  Protestant  religion  is  not  the  religion  of 
Christ;  even  according  to  the  testimony  of 
its  founders. 

Here,  Rev'd  Sir,  are  four  brief  and  dis- 
tinct arguments,   which  I  defy  all   the   pow- 


hundred  years  old; — whereas  "the  religion   ers  of  human  ingenuity  to  refute: — not  be- 
of  Christ"  is  eighteen  hundred  years — there-' cause  they  are  of  my  construction,  but  because 


170 


they  are  true,  in  all  their  parts.  Nothing 
can  overturn  truth.  You  may  excite  the 
passions  of  men  to  hate  it,  you  may  succeed 
to  envelope  it  in  the  mists  of  prejudice,  but 
still  it  is  truth,  and  because  it  is  truth,  it 
cannot  be  altered  or  destroyed.  Permit  me 
then  to  invite  your  attention  to  these  tour 
arguments,  examine  them  joint  by  joint, 
and  if  they  are  true,  then  admit  for  the  sake 
of  truth,  that  "the  Protestant  religion  is  not 
the  religion  of  Christ.'' 

Your  definition  of  tjje  Protestant  religion, 
might  have  been  much  shorter  and  equally 
to  the  purpose.  You  might  have  said,  at 
once,  and  in  a  few  words,  "The  Protestant 
religion  is  not  the  Catholic  religion."  Now 
this  is  no  definition.  You  tell  me  what  the 
Protestant  religion  is  not;  whereas  I  require 
to  know  what  it  is.  In  order  to  a  definition, 
you  must  describe  a  thing  by  its  own  pro- 
perties, its  own  distinctive  characteristics. 
"The  Protestant  religion,  you  say,  is 'the 
religion  of  the  Reformation."  This  is  mr 
definition;  until  you  have  fixed  the  positive 
meaning  of  the  word  Reformation.  That 
word  has  a  great  variety  of  meanings,  among 
Protestants;  it  gave  birth  to  a  numerous  off- 
spring of  religions,  and  I  should  be  glad  to 
know  whether  you  intend  to  bear  a  shield 
Broad  enough  to  cover  and  protect  them  all. 
In  my  arguments  above,  I  disregarded  all 
definition  of  the  Protestant  religion;  be- 
cause those  arguments  are  equally  strong, 
no  matter  what  it  is.  But  a  definition  is 
absolutely  necessary,  and  as  yours  is  the  bu- 
siness of  defence,  it  is  your  duty  to  furnish 
it.  You  have  attempted  another  definition, 
and  told  us  that  the  Protestant  religion  "is 
the  religion  which  is  exclusively  derived 
from  and  consistent  with  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures    AS     THE     ONLY     INFALLIBLE     RULE    OP 

faith  and  practice."  This,  Rev'd  Sir,  is 
precisely  the  definition,  which  the  Unita- 
rians, Sweclenborgians,  and  Universalists, 
give  of  their  religion.  Do  you  purpose  then, 
to  prove  that  their  religion^  is  the  religion  of 
Christ!  But  as  I  do  not  wish  to  misrepre- 
sent the  Protestant  religion,  I  desire  that  you 
tell  me  whether  these  denominations  are  in- 
cluded in  it,  or  not;  they  are  certainly  in- 
cluded in  your  definition. 

If  I  were  allowed  to  define  the  Protestant 
religion,  I  should  call  it  "the  religion  of  free- 
thinking  about  the  meaning  of  the  Bible. 
The  religion  in  which  every  man  has  a  right 
to  judge  for  himself;  and  to  make  the  sacred 
text  of  Scripture  speak  in  accordance  with 
his  judgment.  The  religion,  in  which  there 
is  neither  seism,   nor  heresy,    neither  faith 


nor  heterodoxy,  because  being  a  religion  of 
individual  s/eculation,  and  private  opinion, 
these  things  are  necessarily  rendered  impos- 
sible. I  should  say,  that  it  is  the  religion 
which  cannot  recover,  from  the  moral  shock 
of  its  own  first  principles.  The  religion  which 
if  considered  in  the  aggregate  of  its  sects, 
allows  its  ministers  to  teach  the  people  that 
the  Bible  contradicts  itself  ten  times  in  one 
page.  The  religion,  in  fine,  which  occupies 
the  intermediate  space,  between  ancient 
Christianity,  and  modern  Deism,  combining 
certain  elements  ol  both ;  and  cherishing  en- 
mity towards  both,  (especially  the  former,) 
and    unable  to  defend  itself  against  either." 

Such  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  true  definition 
of  the  Protestant  religion.  Such  are  its  own 
inherent  properties  and  characteristics.  But 
still  as  you  have  undertaken  to  prove  that  it 
is  the  "  religion  of  Christ,"  you  have  a  right 
to  define  it  as  you  please,  provided  you  will 
only  tell  me  what  it  is,  instead  of  amplifying 
its  negative  qualties,  by  telling  me  what  it 
is  not. 

Before  I  conclude  this  letter,  I  must  call 
your  attention  and  that  of  our  readers,  to  a 
passage  of  vour  last  epistle  which  if  I  under- 
stand it,  proves  that  the  leaven  of  intoler- 
ance is  still  working  in  the  bosom  of  Presby- 
terianism.  It  is  not,  indeed,  the  declaration 
of  the  General  Assembly;  and  therefore  I  am 
inclined  to  impute  it  rather  to  the  irritation 
of  your  pen,  than  to  the  body  of  Calvinists 
at  large,  among  whom,  I  have  no  doubt  there 
are  many  who  will  disapprove  of  its  spirit 
and  bearing  as  much  as  I  do.  It  runs  as  fol- 
lows: 

"  In  a  word,  a  new  era  has  come  in  our 
country.  The  American  people  will  prompt- 
ly see,  'who  the  serpent  is  (to  use  your  own 
illustration,)  that  stings  the  bosom  which 
warms  it.'  They  will  henceforth  know 
where  to  send  their  children  for  education, 
and  when  to  contribute  in  generous  and 
abused  confidence,  to  build  the  Schools,  and 
Convents,  and  Chapels,  that  are  to  train  the 
children  to  call  their  parents  heretics;  and 
are  arising  to  re-establish  a  religion  which 
never  did,  never  will,  and  never  can,  permit 
a  free  government  or  religious  toleration. 
The  people  are  awake  or  awaking;  and 
you  must  change  your  system  or  lose  your 
prize." 

This  language.  Rev.  Sir,  will  be  read  not 
indeed,  with  astonishment,  (considering  its 
source)  but  with  indignation  by  every  true 
hearted  American  citizen.  Is  it  then  a  crime 
in  the  "American  people,"  that  they  do  not 
exclude  Catholics  from  the  privileges  which 


171 


the  constitution  secures  to  all?  Is  the  de- 
mon of  sectarian  hatred,  ill-will  among  men, 
and  intolerance  to  be  again  invoked; — are 
the  penal  laws  to  be  again  enacted  ; — the 
fires  of  persecution  to  be  again  lighted  up,  as 
the  nostrum  of  political  salvation  for  these 
United  States;  merely  because  Mr.   Breck- 

frightened  at  the 
at  are  the  crimes 


inridge  is,  or  affects  to  be,  li 
progress  of  Catholicity?  Wha 


progress 


their  own  interest  in  thi9  matter.  They 
wish  to  place  their  sons  in  those  institutions 
where  there  are  found  good  discipline,  con- 
scientious tutors,  vigilant  attention  to  health 
and  morals,  competent  and  zealous  profes- 
sors, and  all  the  means  of  a  sound,  radical, 
and  thorough  education; — and  if,  in  their 
judgment,  all  these  advantages  are  found  in 
Catholic  colleges  and  seminaries,  why  should 
you  blame  them  for  not  sending  their  children 


imputed  to  Catholics?    Why,  that  they  estab-    you  bla 

lish  houses  of  "  education,"  and  that  P.otes- 1  to  Princeton  and  Carlisle  ?  As  for  the  charge 
tants  have  been  generous  enough  to  contribute  j  of  teaching  them  to  call  their  parents  "  He- 
to  their  erection.  Now  if  they  have  founded  i  retics,"  it  is  a  calumny  too  silly  to  deserve 
such  institutions,  it  is  a  sign  that  they  are  refutation.  Their  own  interest  would  forbid 
not  those  votaries  of  ignorance,  which  you  |  them,  even  if  they  were  inclined.  But  I  ap- 
vouiself  have  elsewhere  represented  them,  peal  to  all  the  Protestant  parents  that  ever 
And  if  Protestants  have  "contributed,"  to  patronised  those  institutions,  to  say  whether 
aid  them  in  this  work  (of  which  you  furnish    their  children  did  not  return  to  them  as  obe 


no  evidence)  it  is  a  sign  that  these  Protes 
tants  approved  of  the  undertaking,  and  exer- 
cised the  privilege  of  dominion  over  their 
own  property,  without  consulting  their  minis- 
ters. Farther,  Catholic  literary  Institutions 
have  never  cost  the  public  one  cent  for  their 
maintenance,  whereas  those  under  the 
management  of  Protestant  professors,  besides 
their  primitive  endowment,  have  obtained 
vast  sums  of  the  public  money.  Not  to  go 
out  of  our  own  State,  look  at  the  Dickinson 
*Presbyterian  College  of  Carlisle,  which  never 
flourished  except  when  it  was  allowed  to  feed 
at  the  public  treasury  of  the  State;  and  after 
having  received  a  number  of  legislative 
grants,  as  if  it  were  an  alms  house  instead  of 
a  College,  it  has  finally  transferred  itself  to 
the  Methodists,  who,  1  trust,  will  make  a 
better  use  of  it. 

The  Catholic  colleges,  and  houses  of  edu- 
cation, never  beg  at  the  doors  of  government 
for  any  such  aid.  They  hold  that  the  insti- 
tution which,  in  this  country,  is  not  able  to 
support  itself  by  its  own  intrinsic  merit, 
ought  not  to  exist.  They  are  patronised  by 
Protestants  and  I  regret  that  you  should  have 
betrayed  your  mortification  at  this  circum- 
stance.     Protestants    begin    to    understand 


*  Grants  by  Legislature  to  Dickinson  College  : 
1786,  April  7,  500Z.  and  10,000  acres  of  land,  ex- 
changed afterwards  for  #6000,  say  #7335  00 
1788,  Oct.  4,  a  lot  of  ground  in  the  borough  of 

Carlisle. 
1791,  Sept.  30,  1500/,  say  4000  00 

1795.  April  11,  #5000  5000  00 

1806,  Feb.  24,  #8400  on  mortgage  free  of  interest 

for  five  years  ;  but 
1819,  the  trustees  discharged  from  the  payment,    8400  00 
1921,  Feb.  20,  #2000  annually  for  five  years,      10,000  00 
1826,  Feb.  13,  #3000  annually  for  seven  years,  21,000  00 


#55,735  00 
Making  in  all  fifty-five  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
thirty-five  dollars  of  the  public  money  given  to  the  Pres- 
byterian Dickinson  College  of  Carlisle! 


dient,  as  respectful,  as  affectionate  as  before 
they  went;  and  with  a  more  delicate  and 
conscientious  apprehension  of  thei  r  filial,  so- 
cial, and  moral  duties.  Why  then  should 
you  blame  them  for  their  preference  ? 

As  to  Catholics  being  a  "  serpent  warmed 
in  the  bosom  of  the  American  people,"  it  is 
language,  which,  as  I  said  before,  no  true  son 
of  the  Constitution  will  understand,  except  to 
execrate  the  spirit  which  it  seems  to  breathe. 
The  "American  people,"  as  a  people,  knows 
no  distinction  of  creeds;  and  yet  you  speak  as 
if  the   Government  were  already  chained  to 
the  car  of  the  General  Assembly!    The  Catho- 
lics, as  citizens,  are  part  and  portion  of  that 
"people,"   being  as    peaceable    in    their  de- 
meanor, as  upright  in  their  dealings  as  indus- 
trious in  their  avocations,  and  as  ardent  in 
their  attachment  to  civil  and  religious  liber- 
ty,    as    any   other     denomination.      When 
the    tree   of   American    liberty   was   plant- 
ed, was  it  not  watered  with  Catholic  blood? 
When  the  instrument  of  American  Indepen- 
dence was  drawn  up,  was  it  not  signed  with 
Catholic  ink?     When  the  provinces  on  our 
borders  were  to  be  conciliated,  was  not  the 
commission  intrusted  to  a  Catholic  Senator, 
and  a  Catholic  Priest;  afterwards  Archbish- 
op Carrol?     When   the  battle  was  won,  was 
not  the  glory  of  the  victory  divided  with  the 
Catholic  soldiers,  of  a  Catholic  king?     And 
yet,  you  speak  of  Catholics  as  if  they  live 
and   breathe   the  free  air,   by  the     criminal 
connivance  of  "the  American  people.''  But 
you,  forsooth,  are  about  to  rouse  that  "peo- 
ple," from  its  apathy  to  teach  them,  that  in 
allowing  the  Catholics  to  share  the  benefits 
of  the  constitution — for  I   know  of  no  other 
privilege  that  they  enjoy — they  are  "cherish- 
ing a  serpent  that  will  sting  the  bosom  which 
warms  it." 


172 


But  this,  you  say,  was  my  "  own  illustra- 
tion," applied  to  Presbyterians.  Yes,  Rev'd 
Sir,  but  applied  on  the  faith  of  history ;  to 
the  Puritans,  who,  when  they  were  perse- 
cuted in  Virginia,  fled  to  the  Catholic  Colony 
of  Maryland,  and  in  return  for  the  hospitality 
they  received,  turned  round  at  the  first  op- 
portunity, and  persecuted  those  who  had  ex- 
ercised it  towards  them.  Read  M'Mahon's 
History  of  Maryland.  This  was  the  case, 
which  was  illustrated  by  the  simile  of  the  ser- 
pent; and  if  history  testifies  that  Catholics 
have  at  any  time,  ever  been  guilty  of  such 
base  ingratitude,  I  have  no  objection  that 
you  should  borrow  and  apply  "my  illustra- 
tion." Your  application  of  it  to  Catholics, 
as  distinguished  from  "the  American  peo- 
ple," borders  too  much  on  the  ludicrous,  and 
shows  that  you  were  straitened  for  matter, 
wherewithal  to  excite  prejudice  against  Ca- 
tholics, when  you  quit  the  testimony  of  pa^t 
events,  and  appeal  to  the  visions  of  futurity. 
But  I  fear  that  your  fallibility  as  an  histo- 
rian, will  have  impaired  your  credit  as  a 
prophet. — Since  it  is  much  easier  to  be  ac- 
quainted with  what  has  taken  place  in  the 
world,  than  to  thread  with  prophetic  accu- 
racy the  labyrinth  of  future  contingencies. 

"Chi  oft'ende,  non  pardona,''  says  the 
proverb.  And  it  would  be  one  happv  result 
of  this  controversy,  if  you  could  only  turn 
against  the  Catholics  that  current  of  jealous 
apprehension,  which  for  some  time  past  has 
been  setting  in>  against  the  Presbyterians  them- 
selves in  reference  to  their  ambitious  projects 
and  political  aspirations.  It  would  be  well,  if 
the  "  American  people,''  could  be  induced  to 
cast  their  eyes  in  another  direction.  But, 
Rev.  Sir,  J  shall  not  be  the  accuser  of  Pres- 
byterians, as  to  any  ulterior  political  de- 
signs. I  have  marked  their  movements  ; 
their  professions  of  zeal  for  the  glory  of  God; 
their  plans  for  accomplishing  it;  their  schemes 
of  sectarian  quackery,  by  which  it  would  ap- 
pear that  they  are  accountable  for  the  reli- 
gious, and  moral  well-being  not  only  of  the 
"  American  people,"  but  of  the  whole  hu- 
man race; — their  wish  to  have  "Christian  par- 
ties" in  politics,  and  Christian  magistrates, 
whose  duty  it  is,  says  their  Standard  to  be 
"nursing  fathers  of  the  Church;" — their 
enumeration  of  Presbyterian  votes  on  the 
day  of  election;  their  attempts  to  have  the 
mail  stopped  on  Sunday — in  a  word,  their 
gigantic  schemes  for  the  reformation  of  the 
world,  according  their  ideas  of  perfection; — 
all  conspire  to  produce  the  apprehension,  not 
that  will   seize    the    civil   government  (the 


American  people  will  take  care  of  that)  but 
that  in  their  zeal  for  the  sanctification  of 
others,  they  may  neglect  the  sanctification  of 
themselves.  This  is  all  the  evil  that  I 
apprehend  from  the  intermeddling  and 
pragmatic  spirit,  which  seems  to  animate 
the  zealous  members  of  Presbyterianism, 
from  the  Moderator  in  General  Assembly, 
down  to  those  well  meaning  children  who 
cherish  large  notions  about  curing  the.  moral 
distempers  of  a  whole  neighbourhood,  by 
thrusting  tracts  into  every  house,  whether  the 
family  desires  them  or  not.  But  as  to  the 
"  American  people,"  they  have  nothing  to 
dread  on  either  side, — they  will  take  care  of 
the  State,  if  clergymen  will  only  take  care  of 
the  Church — the  denomination,  however  that 
first  attempts  to  bring  about  a  union  of  these 
two,  makes  preparations  for  tragic  nuptials. 
In  your  postscript  you  charge  me  with  at- 
tempting to  injure  the  Rev.  Mr.  Burtt.  I 
really  cannot  suffer  such  a  charge  to  pass 
unnoticed.  How  does  the  case  stand  ?  You 
stated  that  you  had  been  informed,  that 
Bishop  Kenrick  had  warned  the  people 
against  reading  this  controversy.  You  sub- 
sequently apologized  to  him;  but  transferred 
the  charge  to  some  other  of  the  Catholic 
clergy  in  this  city.  The  charge  itself  was 
a  "gratuitous  falsehood,"  because  there 
was  not  the  shadoiv  of  foundation  for  it. 
This  was  manifest,  from  the  ludicrous  tex- 
ture of  that  ludicrous  composition,  signed 
John  Burtt — and  more  so  still,  from  the  let- 
ter of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Fitton,  of  the  "  Connec- 
ticut Valley,"  who  proves  it  a  falsehood, 
by  showing  that  he  was  in  Washington  city, 
on  the  very  day  on  which  he  is  charged 
with  having  issued  the  "prohibition,"  in  St. 
John's  church,  Philadelphia.  It  was  a  "  ca- 
lumny," because  it  insinuated  dishonesty  of 
purpose  on  the  part  of  the  Catholic  clergy, 
in  forbidding  the  people  to  behold  the  light 
of  truth  which  your  pen  was  shedding, 
around  the  topic  of  controversy.  This  was 
the  state  of  the  case  independent  of  any 
man's  authorship.  And  when  I  held  Rov. 
John  Burtt  as  accountable  for  it;  you  should 
remember  that  I  did  so,  on  your  own  specific 
testimony,  for  in  your  last  letter  but  one  you 
stated  positively,  that  Mr.  Burtt  was  "the 

ORIGINAL,      AND     RESPONSIBLE      INFORMANT." 

If  that  Gentleman  is  injured,  therefore,  let 
him  charge  the  injury  upon  you,  or  upon  him- 
self or  on  both  together ;  but  not  upon 


Yours,  &c. 


Jno.  Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY Nu.  22. 


Is  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  June  21th,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — The  great  question  now  before  us,  is  this: 
Is  the  Protestant  religion  the  religion  of  Christ  ?  The 
order  of  debate  as  agreed  on  between  us,  entitles 
me  to  introduce  this  topic.  Hence  you  have  cal- 
led on  me  for  a  definition  of  "  the  Protestant  re- 
ligion," and  pledged  yourself  to  respect  it.  The 
terms  of  the  question  make  it  general — not  Pres- 
byterian, but  Protestant ,-  they  also  refer  us  to  zfact 
out  of  which  the  name  grew,  viz.  that  a  protest  had 
been  entered  :  and  they  point  us  to  the  church  and 
system  against  which  lue  protest.  The  very  first 
step,  therefore  in  the  order  of  discussion,  is  to  show 
against  what  we  protest.  After  this,  or  if  you 
please,  in'  contrast  with  it,  it  will  be  proper  to  ex- 
amine that  vjhich  the  Protestants  propose,  as  true 
and  good,  in  opposition  to  the  errors  and  evils  of 
the  church  of  Rome.  I  have  on  this  plan  given 
you  a  definition  of  the  Protestant  religion.  It  is 
a  positive  definition,  viz.  a  religion  exclusively  de- 
rived from,  and  consistent  with  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice — and 
I  referred  for  illustration  of  it  to  the  earliest  creed 
and  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  as  well  as  to  those 
who  have  been  emphatically  called  The  Reformers 
of  the  16th  century.  It  is  also  negative  in  contra- 
distinction from  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  as  to 
doctrine,  morality,  government,  discipline  and  wor- 
ship, and  as  protesting  against  the  errors  and  cor- 
ruptions of  the  church  of  Rome.  If  I  am  then  to 
show  why  I  protest,  I  must  exhibit  what  I  protest 
against ;  else  the  correlative  term  Protestant,  has  no 
meaning.  And  if,  as  you  say,  I  am  the  original 
assailant,  why  do  you  tell  me  that  mine  "  is  the  I 
business  of  defence?"  And  if,  of  two  leading! 
questions,  (viz.  "The  rule  of  faith,"  and  this) 
the  first  is  given  to  you,  and  the  last  to  me, 
shall  I  be  required  to  defend  under  the  first, 
and  also  under  the  last?  Are  you  then  afraid 
to  follow  me  in  the  steps  of  my  discussion, 
while  I  compare  our  respective  religions  with  each 
other,  and  with  the  religion  of  Christ  ?  If  so, 
you  concede  the  weakness  of  your  cause.  If  not, 
then  follow  me. 

I  have  already  proved  (in  my  letters  Nos.  18, 
and  20,)  on  the  authority  of  Roman  Catholic 
writers,  and  Roman  Catholic  councils,  that  a  Re- 
formation was  necessary — and  that  it  was  an 
article  of  faith  that  a  Reformation  was  neces- 
sary—not only  in  the  days  of  Luther,  but 
for  ages  befote  :  that  a  Reformation  was  needed, 
in  the  head  and  in  the  members:  that  the  name  of 
Christ  had  been  forgotten  by  the  nations,  and 
even  by  the  clergy ;  that  Rome  herself,  the  avenv- 


ed  mother  and  mistress  of  churches,  was  the 
very  place  wher«  Christ's  religion  was  scanda- 
lized and  his  worship  corrupted  :  that  simony 
and  sacrilege  with  nuns,  clerical  debauchery, 
"  a  world  of  superstitions"  and  the  most  shock- 
ing corruptions  abounded  and  reigfted  in  the 
church  ;  and  in  a  word,  that  an  ignorant  and  cor- 
rupt priesthood  were  bringing  ruin  on  the  church. 
Pope  Adrian  the  6th  said,  "  the  whole  world 
groaned  aftera  reformation:"  the  Suffragan  Bishop 
of  Salts-burgh  (onus  ecclesiae)  declared  "  it  is 
vehemently  to  be  presumed,  and  cautiously  to  be 
feared,  that  the  ruin  of  the  Latin  (Roman) 
Church,  as  to  its  ecclesiastical  dignity,  is 
near;"  and  the  2d  Pisan  council  (sess.  3d  apud. 
Richerium,  b.  4.  pt.  1st)  decreed  "  that  the  uni- 
versal Church  needed  reformation  in  faith  and 
manners,  in  the  head  and  members.'''' 

And  yet  it  has  also  been  proved  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  would  not  be  reformed  ;  that  it 
was  not  reformed--;  and  that  on  the  ground  of  its 
pretended  infallibility,  it  never  could  be  reformed. 
Such  confessedly  was  the  deplorable  condition  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  when  "  the  Reformation"  be- 
gan, and  it3  authors  received  the  name  of  Protes- 
tants. Treading  in  their  footsteps,  we  Protest 
against  her  corruption  of  the  religion  of  Christ. 

;Ii  She  has  corrupted  this  religion  at  the  foun- 
tain-head, by  making  another  Bible,  adding  to  it 
"the  Apochryphal  Books,"  which  I  have  already 
proved  were  rejected  for  many  centuries  by  the 
Christian  church,  which  contain  fables,  lies, 
false  doctrines,  and  contradictions ;  and  in  which 
alone  are  found  some  of  those  very  errors  that  are 
held  by  the  church  of  Rome.  She  has  also  given 
to  corrupt  and  unwritten  traditions  the  same  au- 
thority with  God's  own  word  ;  and  thus  at  her 
will  brought  from  this  forge  any  doctrine  that  the 
times  and  ends  called  for.  From  these  topics, 
while  on  the  rule  of  faith,  you  uniformly  shrunk, 
thus  confessing  that  they  could  not  be  defended.^.^ 

2,   The  Supremacy  of  the  Pope,  is  a  radicalar^T,",* 
ror  in  the  church  of  Rome,  is  a  wicked  and  anti-  ( 
christian  usurpation,   which  by   a  lawless   mo-  '  V 
narchy  oppresses  men,  and  rebels  against  God. 

In  the  famous  creed  of  Pius  IV.,  which  every 
Roman  Catholic  is  bound  without  qualification,  to 
believe,  is  this  oath  :  "  I  promise  and  swear  true 
obedience  to  the  Roman  Bishop  ;  the  successor 
of  St.  Peter,  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  vicar 
of  Jesus  Christ."  Boniface  VIII.  in  a  decree 
extant  in  the  canon-law,  pronounces  it  "  neces- 
sary to  salvation  for  every  human  being  to  be 
subject  to  the  Roman  Pontiff."  Bellarmine  says, 
(Chap.   17.  b.  2.)    "All    the   names,   which  in 


174 


Scripture  are  applied  to  Christ,  proving  him  to  be 
above  the  church,  are  in  like  manner  applied  to  the 
Pope.""     Is  not  this  profane  ?     The  Pope  is  also 
styled  "  Head  of  the  church"—"  Lord  of  lords" 
"Father  of  fathers"— "  our -Lord  God  the  Pope," 
and  the  like.     As  the  vicar  of  Christ,  the  Pope  is 
blasphemously  set  up  to  take  his  place  on  earth. 
Thus  he  is  the  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King,  of  the 
church    on    earth.      He    is    a    Prophet;    for    no 
Council  is  valid,  unless  called  and  approved  by 
him;  and  from   this  infallible  source  we  are  to 
learn,  (1.)  What  is  the  word  of  God   and  what 
not;  and  (2.)  without  daring  to  think  for  our- 
selves, we  are  to  learn  what  it  means,  and  what 
not.     As  a  Priest,  he  professes  to   offer  up  con- 
tinually the  true  Christ  in  the   Mass  as  a  sacri- 
fice to  God  :  and  as  a  king,  he  is  a  monarch,  is 
Head  of  the  church  and  the  state,  is  King  of 
kings;  has  both  swords,  and  can  make  laws  to 
bind  the  consciences  of  men,  can  depose  kings, 
dissolve    oaths,    allegiance,   &c.     This    can    all 
be    clearly  made   out  on  indisputable   evidence. 
This   is   blasphemy.     Is  Christ  absent  from  the 
world  that  he  needs  a  substitute!     "All  power 
is  given  unto  me  on  earth  and   in  heaven,  and  lo 
I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world."     (Matth.   xxviii.   18-20.)     Is  he  impo- 
tent?    Is  he  neglectful  of  his  kingdom?     Does 
not  the    Scripture   say,    "There   is   one   Lord," 
(Ephes.  iv.  5.)  one  head  as  well   as  one   body . 
that  Christ  is  the  only  potentate,  the  King  of  kings, 
and  Lord  of  lords.     (1  Tim.  vi.  15;)  and  the  only 
lawgiver.     (James  iv.  12  ?)     And  did   not  Christ 
say  to  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles,  "  Be  ye  not 
called   Rabbi  ( 'master )  for  one  is  your   master, 
even  Christ,  and  all  ye  are  brethren .-    neither  be 
ye  called  masters,  for  one  is.  your  master,  even 
Christ;  but  he  that  is  greatest  among  you  shall 
be  your  servant."  (Matt.  chap,  xxiii.  8.)    Does  not 
Paul   say,  (2  Cor.  i.  24.)  "  We  have  not  domi- 
nion over  your  faith.-  (yet  Paul  was  equal  to  Pe- 
ter,) but  we  are  helpers  of  your  joy  :  by  faith  ye 
stand,"  (Titus  iii.  1.)  "Put  them  in  mind  to  be 
subject  to  principalities  and  powers,  to  obey  ma- 
gistrates." (Matth.  xx.  25.  26.)  Jesus  said;  "  Ye 
know  that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise 
dominion  over  them,  and  they  that  are  great,  ex- 
ercise authority  upon  them,   but  it  shall  not  be  so 
among  you."     This   was  a   rebuke   to  apostles, 
who  were  asking  for  supremacy  !     So  palpable  is 
the  sacrilegious  arrogance  of  the  titles  and  au-' 
Jhority  of  the  Pope,  that  Pope  Gregory  I.  said, 
(though  many  centuries  ago)  "  I  confidently  say 
that  whosoever  doth  call  himself  universal  Bishop, 
or  desireth  to  be  so  called,  doth  in  his  elation  be- 
come the  forerunner  of  anti-christ,  because  in  his 
pride  he  doth  set  himself  before  all  others,"  and  he 
calls  that  title,  (which  is  less  presumptuous  than 
others    since    assumed,)     "foolish,"    "proud," 
"profane,"  "wicked;"  and  refers  the  man  who 
aspired  to  it,  to  the  example  of  Lucifer  for  illustra- 
tion,  and  to  the  judgment  of  the  great  day  for 
retribution.      How    fitting    is    the    prophecy   of 
Paul's, — than  which  a  truer  likeness  \vas  never 
drawn,  and  which  God's  people  have  been  accus- 
tomed, for  many  ages,  (uniting  with  Pope  Gre- 
gory) to  apply  to  his  successors  at  Rome  !     "  And 


J^1 


that  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perditiori 
who  opposeth,  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that 
is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshipped  ;  so  that  he 
as  God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  showing 
himself  that  he  is  God.   (2  Thess.  ii.  3,  4.) 

Add  to  all  this  what.  Genebard  (chron.  ad  Ann. 
901.)  says:  "For  almost  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years,  about  fifty  popes,  having  departed  from  the 
virtue  of  their  predecessors,  were  apostate,  rather 
than  apostolical ;   at  which  times  they  entered  in 
(to  office)  not  by  the  door,  but  by  a  back-door,  that 
is  to  say,  by  the  power  of  the  Emperors."     Ba- 
ronius   too    (vol.   x.  A.   D.   908)    thus    writes : 
"  Hast  thou  heard  of  the  most  deplorable  state  of 
things  at  this  time  when  Theodora  the  elder,  a 
strumpet  of  noble  family,  obtained  supreme  con- 
trol (monarchiam)  if  I  may  so  say,  in  the  city  of 
Rome.      She   prostituted   her   daughters   to  the 
popes,  the  invaders  of  the  Apostolic  seat,  and  to 
the  marquisses  of  Tuscany  ;  by  which  means,  the 
dominion  of  such  wicked  women  became  so  ab- 
solute, that  they  removed  at  pleasure  the  lawfully 
created    popes,   and  having   expelled   them,   in- 
truded violent  and  most  wicked  men  in  their  places." 
Such  things  are  almost  loo  bad  to  relate — how 
much  worse  to  be  done  in  the  infallible  seat  by  the 
Vicar  of  Jesus,  and   the  universal  head   of   the 
Church  !     Yet  the  same  author  informs  us  that 
these  monsters  were  received  by  the  Church  with 
the  reverence   due  to  the   successor  of  Peter! 
(eundem  ut  Petrum  colerent.)     Now  from  such 
a  church,  is  it  schism  to  come  out  ?     Against  such 
corruptions  in  doctrine  and  radical  morals,  is  it 
heresy  to  protest  ? 

3.  As  you  have  several  times  alluded  to  my 
statement,  "that  indulgences  were  a  bundle  of 
licenses   to   commit  sin,"    I   will   next    present 
that   doctrine.      The    wanton    and    unprincipled 
trafic  of  Tetzel  in  indulgences,  under  the  sanction 
of  the  Pope,  may  be  considered  the  salient  point 
of  the   Reformation.      This    as  you  know  was 
Pope  Leo  Xth's   way  of  paying  for  the  immense 
Apostolical  edifice  of  St.  Peters,  which  is  estimated 
to  have  cost  $60,000,000.     He  published  Indul- 
gences and  plenary  remission  of  sins,  to  all  such 
as   should   contribute    money   towards   it.     The 
form  of  these  indulgences,  drawn  by  the  authority 
of  the  Pope,  shows  their  nature.     "  May  our  Lord 
Jesus   Christ  have  mercy  upon  thee,  and  absolve 
thee  by  the  merits  of  his  most  holy  Passion-     And 
I,  by  his  authority,  that  of  his  blessed  Apostles,  Pe- 
ter and  Paul,  and  that  of  the  most  holy  Pope,  grant- 
ed and  committed  to  me  in  these  parts,  do  absolve 
thee,   first    from   all   ecclesiastical   censures,   m 
whatever  manner  they  have  been  incurred,  then 
from  all  thy  sins,  transgressions,  and  excesses, 
how  enormous  soever  they  may  be;  even  from 
such  as  are  reserved  for  the  cognizance  of  the  Holy 
See,  and  as  far  as  the  keys  of  the  Holy  Church 
extend.     I   remit  to  you  all  punishment  which 
you  deserve  in  purgatory  on  their  account ;    and 
I   restore    you   to   the   holy    sacraments  of  the 
Church,  to  the  unity  of  the  faithful,  and  to  that 
innocence  and  purity  which  you  possessed   at 
baptism :    so  that  when  you  die,  the  gates  of  pun- 
ishment shall  be  shut,  and  the  gates  of  the  para- 
dise of  delight  shall  be  opened  ;  and  if  you  shall 


175 


not  die  at  present,  this  grace  shall  remain  in  full 
force,  when  you  are  at  the  point  of  death.  In 
the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost."  It  was  in  the  use  of  this  daring  and 
scandalous  commission  that  Tetzel  set  up  heaven 
for  sale  ;  and  it  was  in  resisting  this  infamous 
traffic  that  Luther  began  the  work  of  reformation. 
The  Council  of  Trent  teaches  that  "  whoever  shall 
affirm  that  when  the  graee  of  justification  is  receiv- 
ed, the  offence  of  the  penitent  sinner  is  so  forgiven, 
and  the  sentence  of  eternal  punishment  so  revers- 
ed, that  there  remains  no  temporal  punishment  to 
be  endured,  before  his  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  either  in  this  world,  or  in  the  future 
state  in  purgatory  :  let  him  be  accursed."  It  is 
also  an  article  of  faith  in  the  creed  of  Pius  LY^ 
*'  that  the  power  of  indulgences  was  left  by' 
Christ  to  his  church,  and  that  the  use  of  them 
is  very  helpful  to  Christian  people."  Bellar- 
mine's  second  and  third  chapters  of  book- 1, 
on  Indulgences,  are  headed  :  "That  there  exists  a 
certain  treasury  in  the  church,  which  is  the 
foundation  of  indulgences;  that  the  church  has 
the  power  of  applying  this  treasury  of  satis- 
factions, and  thus  of  granting  indulgences." 
And  he  proceeds  to  tell  us  that  this  treasury  is 
made  up  of  the  merits  of  Christ  and  of  the  Saints. 
The  merits  of  the  Saints  are  called  ivorks  of  su- 
pererogation, or  what  a  man  does  beyond  his  duty. 
As  lately  as  the  year  1825,  the  Pope  of  Rome  in 
publishing  a  jubilee,  uses  the  following  language : 
"  t'ie  authority  divinely  committed  to  us  the 
Pope,)  to  open  as  widely  as  possible  that  heaven- 
ly treasury,  which,  being  purchased  by  the  mer- 
its, passions,  and  virtues  of  our  Lord  Christ,  of 
his  virgin  inother,  and  of  all  the  saints,  the  au- 
thor of  human  salvation  has  entrusted  the  dis- 
tribution of  it  to  us,"  &c. 

In  fine,  that  there  may  be  no  doubt  of  the  fact, 
that  the  church  of  Rome  still  holds  this  article  of 
faith  in  all  its  force,  we  point  our  readers  to  the 
plenary  indulgence,  published  in  the  Catholic 
Herald,  on  the  2d  of  May,  1833,  on  the  authority 
of  his  present  Holiness,  Gregory  the  XVI.  and 
signed  John  Hughes,  Secretary.  This  document 
we  shall  examine  at  large  hereafter.  The  above 
history  and  extracts  from  the  standards  of  the 
church,  might  suffice  without  further  proof  or 
comment,  to  show  the  anti-christian  character  of 
this  doctrine. 

(1.)  Here  weseethat  the  Pope,  a  finiteand  sinful 
creature,  usurps  the  power  to  forgive  sins.  But 
the  word  of  God  (in  Mark  ii.  7-13.  Luke  v.  21-26. 
Isaiah  xliii.  25:  xliv.  22.  Acts  x.  42.,  and  a  crowd 
of  other  passages,)  teaches  us,  that  it  is  the  preroga- 
tive of  Infinite  and  Almighty  God  alone  to  forgive  sins. 

(2.)  This  doctrine  teaches  that  there  is  need  of 
adding  merit  to  the  merit  of  Christ,  viz  :  that  of 
the  Saints.  But  the  Scriptures  teach  us  that' 
Christ's  merits  are  infinite,-  that  his  righteous- 
ness is  perfect ;  that  he  who  believeth  on  Him 
is  justified  from  all  things;  that  Christ's  satis- 
faction is  a  perfect,  satisfaction  ,■  and  that  he  that 
believeth  on  Him  has  passed  from  death  unto  life: 
M  that  there  is  no  other  name  under  heaven,  given 
among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved,  but  the 
name  of  Jesus,  neither  is  there  salvation  in  any 


other."  (See  1  John  i.  7-10.  Acts  xiii.  39.  Acts 
iv.  12.  Ephes.  ii.  8.  2  Cor.  v.  21.  Rom.  iii.  23- 
20.  Rom.  viii.  2-4.,  &c.  &c.)  Away  then  with 
the  wretched  impiety  of  attempting  to  add  to  this 
divine  and  perfect  satisfaction  !    ' 

(3.)  The  doctrine  of  Indulgences  supposes  that 
a  creature,  and  he  a  fallen  one,  can  do  more  than 
his  duty  ;  and  have  works  of  supererogation  for 
others.  But  what  sailh  the  Scripture,  (I  quote 
from  our  version.)  "  Be  ye  therefore  stedfast, 
immovable,  always  abounding  in  the  work  of  the 
Lord."  (1  Cor.  xv.  58.)  Is  there  any  room 
left  beyond  "abounding;"  or  any  time  beyond 
"always?"  "So,  likewise  ye,  when  ye  have 
done  all  these  things  which  are  commanded  you, 
say  we  are  unprofitable  servants  ;  we  have  done 
that  which  was  our  duty  to  do."  (Luke  xvii.  10.) 
"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind, 
and  with  all  thy  strength ,-  and  thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbour  as  thyself?'1''  Mark  xii.  30.  31.  Is 
there  any  place  here,  to  render  satisfaction  for 
another,  even  if  we  had  any  merits  of  our  own? 
But  in  this  fallen  world  no  man  ever  yet  rendered 
any  meritorious  satisfaction  for  himself,  much  less 
for  another. 

(4.)  This  doctrine  supposes  money  may  buy 
pardon,  and  remission  of  sins.  Hence  the  abun- 
dant sale  of  indulgences  ;  and  the  moneys  still 
paid  for  souls  in  purgatory  !  If  this  doctrine  has 
antiquity  on  its  side,  it  looks  for  parentage  to 
Simon  Magus  ; — and  surely  Peter,  your  1st  Pope 
(as  you  say)  was  against  it;  for  it  is  written  (Acts 
viii.  18-20.)  When  Simon  (Magus)  saw  that 
through  laying  on  of  the  Apostles'  hands,  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  given,  he.  offered  them  money 
saying,  give  me  also  this  power  that  on  whomso- 
ever I  lay  my  hands  he  may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost. 
But  Peter  said  unto  him,  thy  money  perish  with 
thee,  because  thou  hast  thought  that  the  gift  of 
God  may  be  purchased  icith  money  .'"* 

Room  is  wanting  to  add  to  these  particulars. 
We  hope  hereafter  to  pursue  the  proof  thus  be- 
gun. In  the  mean  time,  the  following  contrast 
may  show  the  difference  between  your  religion 
and  the  religion  of  Christ. 

Protestant   Church.         Church  of  Rome. 
The  Gospel  Preached.  Another  Gospel. 

The   word    of  God  says,  The    Church    ot    Rome 

''Thou   stuilt    not  make    a     says.   "We  may  have im- 
graven  image,  or  bow  down     ages  to  kiss  them,  and  un- 
to it.*'  cover  our  heads,  and  pros- 
irate     our     bodies     before 
them/' 


The 


following  statement  which  was  stuck  up  a  few 
years  ago  in  the  churches  of  Madrid,  may  serve  as  a  prac- 
tical illustraiion  of  this  subject: 

"  The  sacred  and  royal  bank  of  piety  lias  relieved  from 
purgatory  from  its  establishment  in  1721  to  Nov.  1826 
1,030,095  souls  at  an  expense  of  £1,720.437  sterling. 
'  do.  from  Nov.  1826  to  )       iaq-ic 
.     Nov.  1827,  5       l*'~'° 


11,405 


1,011,797  1,734,703 

"The  number  of  masses  calculated  to  accomplish  this 

pious   work  was  558.921  :    consequently  each  soul  cost 

abouthalf  a  mass,  or  thirty-three  shillings  and  four  pence." 

So  true  is  it  that  the  real  character  of  Romanism  is  but 

half  disclosed  in  this  country. 


17© 


The  Gospel  of  Christ  says,  The    Church    of     Rome 

"  There  is  one  Mediator  be-  says,   "The    Virgin    Mary 

tween    God    and    man,   the  is  also  a  Mediator,  and  she 

man  Christ  Jesus."  worships  her  as  such  in  her 

offices." 

The     Gospel     of    Christ  In'  the  Church   of  Rome 

says,    "Christ    was    once  Christ  is  daily  offered   in 

offered   to  bear  the  sins  of  the  sacrifice  ol  the  Mass. 
many." 

The     Gospel     of    Christ  The     Church    of   Rome 

says,     '•  Other    foundation  says,  "  The  true  foundation 

can  no  man  lay   than  that  js  "St.  Peter." 
is  laid,  which  is  Christ  Je- 
sus." 

The    Gospel    of    Christ  The    Church    of    Rome 

says,  "  The  heavens  must  says,  '•  The  body  of  Christ 

receive  Christ  until  the  res-  is  every   day  substantially 

tjlution  of  all  things,"  in  the  hands  "of  the  Priest-" 

The    Gospel    of    Christ  The     Church     of    Rome 

says,  "It  is  a  mark  of  apos-  says,  "Marriage  is  not  holj' 

tacy  to  forbid  to  nAarry,  for  or"  honourable   to  the   cler- 

marriage  is   honourable   in  gy." 
all." 

The  Gospel  of  Christ  The  Church  of  Rome  re- 
says,  "  we  should  not  pray  cites  many  of  her  public 
in  an  unknown  tongue,  we  prayers  and  offices  in  Latin, 
should  pray  with  the  under-  which  is  an  unknown  tongue 
standing."  to  most,  and  few  can  under- 
stand it. 

The    Gospel     of    Christ  The    Church     of   Rome 

says,    "  Blessed     are    the  says,  "Many  of  those  who 

dead  who  die  in  the   Lord,  die   in    the    Lord,   go   into 

for  they   rest.i'rom  their  la-  purgatory,  where  there  is  no 

hours."  rest." 

The  Gospel  of  Christ  says,  "  though  we  or  an 
angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto 
you,  than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you, 
let  him  be  accursed." 

I  have  now  showTn,  as  far  as  the  space  allowed 
me  would  admit,  the  anti-christian  character  of 
several  of  your  leading  doctrines.  Here  observe, 
that  infallibility  i3  lost,  if  but  one  error  is  de- 
tected.    But  I  have  brought  proof  of  many. 

II.  Having  thus  shown  that  several  of  the  lead- 
ing doctrines  of  the  church  of  Rome  are  anti- 
Christian,  I  proceed  next  to  prove  that  they  are 
novel  doctrines  also.  Your  church  lays  great  stress 
on  her  antiquity ,-  and  you  say  in  your  1st  objec- 
tion, "  that  the  Protestant  religion  is  only  300 
years  old."  But,  Sir,  it  is  as  old  as  the  religion 
of  Christ.  T  proved  in  my  last  letter  that  divers 
churches  besides  those  called  Protestant,  had  dis- 
sented from  many  of  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  church  ;  and  pointed  you  to  the 
Syrian  church  which  had  never  been  subject  to 
her.  You  choose,  however,  for  good  reasons,  not 
to  notice  these  facts,  I  will  now  point  out  the 
novelty  of  some  of  those  doctrines  which  you  call 
apostolical,  and  prove  them  innovations. 

1.  The  very  canon  of  your  church  is  an  innova- 
tion ;  for  you  include  in  it  many  books  that  were 
for  centuries  rejected  by  the  ancient  Christian 
church,  as  I  have  heretofore  proved.  Cardinal 
Cajetan  called  "  an  oracle"  in  your  church,  thus 
writes,  in  his  Commentaries,  §c.  (composed  at 
Rome,)  on  the  Bible.  "That  what  books  were 
.canonical  or  not  canonical  to  St.  Jerome,  the  same 
ought  either  way  to  be  so  with  us."  "  And  that 
the  whole  Latin  church  js  hereby  very  much 
obliged  to  St.  Jerome,  who  by  severing  the  ca- 
nonical books  of  Scripture  from  those  that  are  not 
canonical,  hath  freed  us  from  the  reproach  of  the 
Hebrews,  who  otherwise  might  say,  that  we  had 


forged  a  new  canon  for  ourselves,  or  parts  of 
books,  which  they  never  had."  "For  this  rea- 
son he  excluded  from  his  volume,  all  those  which 
Jerome  counted  Apochryphal."  "  For  Judith, 
Tobit,  and  the  Maccabees,  are  placed  out  of  the 
canon,  and  are  placed  among  the  Apocrypha,  with 
the  books  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus,  by  the 
blessed  Jerome."  "  These  books  are  not  canoni- 
cal, that  is,  are  not  according  to  rule,  for  estab- 
lishing the  faith ;  (Non  sunt  hi  libri  canonici, 
hoc  est,  non  sunt  regulares  ad  firmandum  ea  quae 
sunt  fidei,)  but  yet  they  may  be  called  canonical, 
that  is,  they  are  according  to  rule,  for  the  edifica- 
tion of  the  faithful."  "  Neither  be  disturbed  by 
the  novelty,  if  at  any  time  you  should  find  these 
books  numbered  among  the  canonical,  either  in 
the  Councils  or  sacred  Doctors  :"  and  he  adds 
"  that  Augustine  and  the  Council  of  Carthage 
are  to  be  reconciled  with  Jerome,  and  the  Coun- 
cil of  Laodicea,  by  this  distinction.''''  (1  Cap. 
Epis.  Heb. ;  and  Epis.  ded.  ad  Pap.  ante  com. 
in  Lib.  V.  T.)  This  is  most  decisive.  Erasmu3 
is  still  more  strong.  And  I  could  bring  fifty  tes- 
timonies, in  the  different  ages,  to  prove  that  your 
canon  is  a  corrupted  and  new  canon. 

2.  The  claim  of  the  Pope  to  be  universal 
Bishop  and  Vicar  of  Christ — is  a  novelty.  The 
title  of  universal  Bishop  was  not  confered  on,  or 
claimed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome  till  the  7th  cen- 
tury. Phocas  (not  Christ)  who  murdered  his  pre- 
decessor, and  who  waded  to  the  throne  through 
his  blood,  conferred  this  title  on  Boniface  the  3d  in 
the  year  606  after  a  criminal  collusion  between 
them  on  the  subject.  We  have  seen  above,  that 
Gregory,  Bishop  of  Rome  had  resisted  the  be- 
stowing of  this  blasphemous  title  on  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople — as  the  forerunner  of  Jlnti- 
Christ.  This  very  fact  shows  that  he  had  no 
such  title,  and  claimed  no  such  headship.  And 
it  is  notorious  that  the  Bishops  of  Constantinople 
and  Rome  long  contended  for  the  supremacy; 
that  it  was  first  tendered  to  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople ;  and  taken  from  him  to  be  given  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome.  The  present  Pope  of 
Rome  is  as  unlike  the  first  Bishop,  as  a  common 
justice  of  the  peace  is  unlike  an  emperor.  The 
Apostle  John  survived  Peter,  the  pretended  1st 
Pope,  some  forty  years.  Either  then  there  was  no 
pope  in  the  world  for  forty  years,  or  else  an  apos- 
tle of  Christ  was  subject  to  him  !  Pope  is  a 
name  synonimous  with  father — and  was  given  to 
all  bishops  until  the  time  of  Gregory  the  VII. 
Even  the  succession  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  on 
Papal  principles,  cannot  be  made  out.  If  it 
could,  they  were  like  other  Bishops — and  most 
unlike  the  present  Pope  :  they  had  nothing  above 
other  bishops  :  they  were  wholly  inferior  to  all 
the  apostles :  Peter  was  never  Bishop  of 
Rome  :  and  the  Church  of  Rome  instead  of  be- 
ing the  oldest  church,  was  established  long  after 
the  church  at  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  &c.  So  clear 
is  it  that  the  supremacy  of  the  pope  is  a  novelty 
and  an  innovation. 

3.  Transubstantiation  is  an  utter  novelty.  This 
doctrine  was  so  far  from  being  held  by  the  primitive 
church,  that  we  know  its  date  and  age.  It  is  an 
absurdity  so  great  that  it  required  implicit  faith  to 


177 


believe  it,  and  "  is  incapable  of  proof,  by  sense 
or  reason,  Scripture  miracles,  antiquity,  or  by 
any  testimony  whatever."  That  it  is  a  novelty 
is  clear  from  this,  that  the  famous  Roman  Catho- 
lic Scotus  affirms  that  it  was  not  an  article  of 
faith  before  the  Lateran  council  (A.  D.  1215)  and 
that  it  cannot  be  proved  from  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
Bellarmine  owns  (book  3  chap.  23,  on  the  Eucha- 
rist,) that  Scotus  says  so,  and  he  admits  "  though 
the  Scripture  quoted  by  us  above  seems  clear  to 
us,  and  ought  to  convince  any  man  who  is  not 
froward;  vet  it  may  justly  be  doubted  wheth- 
er it  be  so  (i.  e.  proved  by  Scripture)  when  the 
most  learned  and  acute  men,  such  as  Scutus  in 
particular  hold  a  contrary  opinion."  Ocham,  Biel, 
Bishop  Fisher,  cardinal  Cajetan,  and  Melchior 
Cane  hold  the  same  belief.  Now  if  it  be  not 
taught  in  Scripture,  surely  it  is  not  an  ancient 
doctrine,-  and  if  it  be  doubtful,  then  it  "was  not 
one  of  those  fixed  stars  in  the  firmament  of  revela- 
tion" of  which  you  speak,  or  a  positive  fact  or  truth, 
such  as  you  contend  every  Roman  Catholic  doc- 
trine is.  Yet  the  Council  of  Trent  decreed  in  all 
the  fierce  spirit  of  fanatical  zeal,  "  Whosoever 
shall  deny  that  in  the  most  holy  sacrament  of  the 
Eucharisi,  there  are  truly,  really,  and  substan- 
tially contained  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ,  together  with  his  soul  and  divinity,  and 
consequently  Christ  entire,  but  shall  affirm  that  he 
is  present  therein  only  in  a  sign,  or  figure,  or  by 
his  power,  let  hinube  accursed."  Here  then,  on  the 
one  hand,  is  history,  and  the  testimony  of  your 
own  chosen  writers,  proving  the  novelty  of  this 
doctrine,  and  a  grave  Council  cursing  and  dam- 
ning all  who  say  it  is  not  the  very  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity, on  the  other. 

4.  It  is  an  antichristian  novelty  to  deny  the  cup 
to  the  people,  in  the  eucharist.  The  canon  of 
Trent  says,  "whosoever  shall  affirm  that  the  Ho- 
ly Catholic  Church  has  not  just  grounds  for  res- 
tricting the  laity  and  non-officiating  clergy  to 
communion  in  the  species  of  bread  only,  or  that 
she  hath  erred  therein,  let  him  be  accursed." 
This  is  awful  language  when  levelled  directly  at 
the  Lord  Jesus  :  for  "  He  took  the  cup,  and  gave 
thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  drink  ye  all  of 
it" — "  and  they  all  drank  of  it" — "  for  as  often  as 
ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show 
his  death  till  he  come."  (See  Math.  xxvi.  1  Cor. 
xi.  &c.) 

Here  then  is  annulling  a  law  of  Christ,  and 
violating  a  sacrament  of  his  appointing !  And 
what  makes  the  impiety  as  well  as  the  novel- 
ty of  this  article  of  your  faith  apparent,  is  that 
the  Councils  of  Constance  and  Trent,  acknow- 
ledge it  as  an  alteration,  and  vindicate  the  change. 
The  Council  of  Constance,  session  13,  says  : 
"  that  although  this  sacrament  was  received  by 
the  faithful  under  both  kinds  in  the  primitive 
church,  it  was  afterwards  received  under  both 
kinds  by  the  officiating  priests,  and  by  the  people, 
under  the  species  of  bread  alone this  there- 
fore being  approved,  it  is  now  made  a  law."  And 
the  holy  synod  ordered  that  all  transgressors  of 
this  decree  "  be  effectually  punished."  The 
Trentine  decree  is  if  possible  still  more  outrage- 
ous.     Here  then,   out  of  her  own   mouth  your 


church  is  convicted  of  the  most  glaring  innova^ 
tions.  And  I  need  not  quote  Justin  Martyr, 
Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  Pope  Gelasius, 
Gratian,  Aquinas,  &c,  to  show  that  this  flagrant 
change,  is  a  novelty  which  none  can  deny,  an  out- 
rage which  none  can  defend. 

The  above  specimens  of  the  novelty  and  innova- 
tions of  your  doctrines,  fully  meet  your  first  ob- 
jection, and  prove  that  your  religion  is  not  the 
religion  of  Christ,  since  as  you  say,  "  the  religion 
of  Christ  is  1800  years  old." 

Your  second  objection  has  no  application,  ex- 
cept to  your  own  religion,  for  we  profess  no  new 
religion.  Ours  is  as  old  as  the  Bible.  Yours,  I 
have  proved  above,  is  characterised  by  novelty. 
We  pretend  to  no  miracles,  but  those  that  esta- 
blished the  religion  of  Christ.  Whereas  your 
pretensions  to  them  indicate  that  your  church  feels 
the  need  of  new  seals  to  a  new  religion.  And 
yet  the  utter  failure  of  her  attempts  to  work 
miracles,  proves  that  she  innovates  without  di- 
vine right,  or  being  sent  of  God. 

Your  third  objection  is  only  a  repetition  of 
wmat  has  again  and  again  been  answered  by  me; 
and  appears,  with  the  fourth  edition  of  your  ten 
heads  on  the  rule  of  faith,  like  the  books  of  the 
sybil  which  were  offered  to  Tarquin,  growing 
less  and  less,  and  yet  setting  up  the  same  claims 
time  after  time. 

Your  fourth  objection  will  be  easily  exposed, 
and  turned  directly  against  you,  when  we  come  to 
show  the  variations  of  Romanism ,-  and  in  its  pro- 
per place,  if  Providence  permit,  we  shall  bring  up 
in  parallel  with  it,  the  Protestant  Religion. 

Before  I  close  this  letter,  it  is  necessary  to  no- 
tice briefly  what,  for  the  sake  of  distinction,  we 

Will  Call  MULTIFARIOUS  MATTERS. 

1.  You  tell  us  that  "  Puscal  was  a  Jansenist, 
and  as  such  was  not  a  Romanist  nor  even  a  Catho- 
lic.'" I  am  pleased  to  find  that  you  admit  the 
distinction  between  Romanist,  and  Catholic.  It  is 
from  confounding  these  very  dissimilar  charac- 
teristics, that  many  of  the  errors  of  your  church 
have  arisen.  The  history  of  Jansenism  most 
clearly  proves  that  your  communion  has  been  no 
stranger  to  sects.-  and  its  condemnation  by  the 
Pope,  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  evidences  of 
the  fact  that  the  church  of  Rome  is  an  enemy  to 
evangelical  truth.  This  is  apparent  as  the  light  of 
day  from  the  Bull  of  Pope  Clement  XI.  issued 
in  1713,  with  advice  of  a  congregation  of  Cardi- 
nals, against  "Father  Quesnel's  moral  reflections 
upon  the  New  Testament."  We  are  by  no  means 
disposed  to  defend  his  doctrines  in  the  gross. 
But  will  not  Christians  of  every  name  look  with 
amazement  at  the  head  of  "the  infallible  church" 
denouncing  such  propositions  as  the  following. 
We  select  then  from  101  which  are  specified  and 
condemned  in  the  Bull,  viz : 

"  No.  26.  No  graces  are  given  except  by  faith. 
66.  He  who  would  draw  near  to  God,  must  nei- 
ther come  to  Him  with  brutal  passions,  nor  be 
led  as  beasts  are  by  natural  instincts,  or  by  fear, 
but  by  faith  and  by  love.  80.  The  reading  of  the 
Holy  Scripture  is  for  every  body.  94.  Nothing 
gives  the  enemies  of  the  church  a  worse  opinion 
concerning  the  church,  than  to  see  therein  an  ab- 


178 


SOLUTE  DOMINION  EXERCISED  OVER  THE  FAITH  OF 
BELIEVERS,    AND    DIVISIONS    FOMENTED    On     aCCOUDt 

of  such  things  as  are  prejudicial,  neither  to  the 
faith  nor  morals.     100.  That  it  is  a  deplorable 
time  when  God    is  thought 'to  be   honoured  by 
persecuting  the  truth,  and   the  disciples  thereof. 
This  time  is  come.  ......  We  often   think  we 

sacrifice  to  God  a  wicked  person,  and  we  sacrifice 
to  the  Devil  a  servant  of  God.''''  These  are  some 
of  the  doctrines  which  the  Bull  "  condemns  and 
rejects  as  false,  captious,  shocking,  offensive  to 
pious  ears,  scandalous,  pernicious,  rash,  injurious 
to  the  church  and  her  practice."  How  remark- 
ably this  Bull  confirms  a  multitude  of  my  former 
reasonings  !  How  true  is  it  that  Romanism  is 
not  Jansenism,  nor  Christianity.  And  now  as  to 
the  Jesuits,  whom  by  implication  you  approve,  and 
Avho  were  the  victorious  opponents  of  Jansenism 
at  the  court  of  Rome,  the  very  name,  though  be- 
speaking a  follower  of  Jesus,  conveys  an  associa- 
tion so  offensive  that  I  will  not  define  it,  lest  I 
should  appear  to  be  personal.  But  how  strange 
it  is  that  they  were  expelled  in  a  former  age  from 
so  many  countries,  and  their  order  abolished  by 
one  Pope,  and  in  latter  days  revived  by  another. 
Each  Pope  gives  potent  reasons  for  the  act. 
Both  could  not  be  infallible.  Yet  both  seem  to 
have  been  approved  by  the  suffrages  of  the  church. 
How  do  you  explain  it? 

You  say  "  our  Bibles  are  in  English."  An- 
swer. Is  your  English  version  authorised  by  the 
church?  You  say  "  The  first  edition  would  be  still  on 
the  bookseller's  shelves  if  there  existed  such  a  prohibi- 
tion.'" Answer.  Has  the  following  law  of  your 
church  been  repealed  ?  If  not,  what  does  it  mean  ? 
"  In  as  much  as  it  is  manifest  from  experience  that  if 
the  Holy  Bible  translated  into  the  vulgar  tongue  (for 
example  into  English)  be  indiscriminately  allowed  to 
every  one,  the  temerity  of  men  will  cause  more  evil  than 
good  to  arise  from  it,  it  is  on  this  point  referred  to  the 
judgment  of  Bishops  or  Inquisitors,  who  who  may  by 

THE  ADVICE  OF    THB   PRIEST    OR    CONFESSOR    PERMIT 

the  reading  of  the  bible and  this  permission 

they  must  have  in  writing.  But  if  any  one  shall 
have  the  presumption  to  read  or  possess  it  without 
such  written  permission,  he  shall  not  receive  absolu- 
tion until  he  have  first  delivered  up  such  Bible  to  the 
■ordinary."  And  even  "Booksellers"  (I  hope  Mr. 
Cummiskey  will  look  well  to  the  written  permis- 
sion) '■'■shall  forfeit  the  value  of  the  books"  (is  not  this 
church  and  state?)  "to  be  applied  by  the  Bishop  to 
some  pious  use,  and  be  subjected  by  the  Bishop  to 
such  other  penalties  as  the  Bishop  shall  judge  pro- 
per." Many  of  your  readers,  who  wonder  at  your 
former  silence  on  this  subject,  would  esteem  it  a  fa- 
vour if  you  will  now  explain  this  contradiction.  And 
as  to  your  Breviary,  your  Mass-book  in  full,  your 
book  of  Councils,  and  book  of  Bulls,  do  you  say 
they  are  in  English  1 

3.  You  shun  the  Bull  of  Innocent  VIII.  in 
a  way  that  is  most  peculiar.  In  the  first  instance 
you  evaded  its  bloody  contents  by  the  argument 
that  a  mistake  of  ten  years  had  been  made  in  its 
date  by  me.  Next  you  defend  it  by  saying  that 
the  Waldenses  "  slew  the  servant"  (for  these  are 
the  words  of  the  annalist)  of  the  Inquisitor!  Bat 
what  right    had    the   Inquisitor    to    arrest  and 


destroy  the  Waldenses  ?  And  if  the  Walden- 
ses did  slay  his  servant,  what  had  the  Pope 
to  do  with,  that?  Where  was  the  civil  govern- 
ment? If  a  Protestant  should  wickedly  slay  a 
Roman  Catholic  in  London,  or  in  Edinburgh,  has 
the  Pope  a  right  to  order  his  Inquisitor  to  slay  him 
and  all  others  who  think  with  him  ?  Yes,  surely 
according  to  your  reasoning!  and  the  civil  go- 
vernment is  only  the  Pope's  creature.  Lastly, 
when  I  adduce  your  own  historian  in  proof  of  the 
Bull,  or  Brief  of  the  Pope,  you  say  "the  annals 
of  Baronius  come  down  only  to  the  year  1 198,  and 
yet  you  quote  his  authority  for  a  fact  which  should 
have  taken  place  in  1487.  How  is  this  ?"  And 
is  it  then  possible  that  this  is  designed  for  a  se- 
rious and  candid  answer  to  the  authority  of  the 
Historian  ?  Can  you  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that 
Raynald  is  the  continuator  of  the  annals  of 
Baronius;  that  he  brought  them  down  to  the  year 
1534,  and  that  his  continuation  is  published  with 
the  permission  and  approval  of  the  highest  autho- 
rity at  Rome?  And  can  you  mean  to  argue  that 
as  it  is  the  continuator  only  who  says  there  was  such 
a  Bull,  therefore  there  was  no  such  Bull?  I  have 
not  words  to  express  to  you  my 'surprise  at  the 
impolicy  of  your  defence,  not  to  name  its  want 
of  candour.  The  fact  then  still  returns  upon 
you  with  augmenting  force,  that  the  said  Bull  or- 
dering Heretics  to  be  butchered,  or  made  slaves,  if  not 
exterminated,  was  indeed  issued  by  the  Pope,  and 
executed  by  his  minions  in  the  name  of  the  God 
of  mercy  ! 

4.  It  is  true  that  Presbyterians  were  once  in  a 
generic  term,  classed  with  other  protestants  under 
the  title  of  Puritans:  and  it  is  also  true  that  Con- 
gregationalists,  Independents,  Presbyterians,  and 
Puritans,  as  a  body  were  and  are,  in  their  funda- 
mental doctrines,  one  people.  But  you  stated  on 
the  authority,  as  you  say  of  Thomas  Jefferson, 
that  Presbyterians,  persecuted  Roman  Catholics 
in  Maryland,  after  having  been  protected  by 
them  :  and  then  you  change  the  term  into  Puritans 
as  if  they  were  convertible,  and  say  the  Pres- 
byterians persecuted  them.  Whereas  the  fact 
is,  there  were  no  Presbyterians  in  Maryland  at  that 
time;  and  by  the  change  of  words  in  your  two 
successive  letters,  you  first  misrepresent  the  facts, 
and  then   seek  to  conceal  that  misrepresentation. 

5.  As  for  the  authority  of  Lenfant,  in  the  case 
of  the  martyr  Huss,  it  is  in  vain  you  seek  to  des- 
troy his  authority  in  this  matter.  The  treachery 
of  the  Council  of  Constance  is  too  palpable  to  be 
denied  by  you,  much  less  defended.  But  the  re- 
bound of  your  defence  acts  on  your  own  cause 
alone.  It  were  easy,  by  a  number  of  Roman  Ca- 
tholic writers,  to  show  that  with  more  candour, 
they  admit  and  justify  the  broad  principle,  "  that 
no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  heretics."  Simancha, 
(Cath.  Inst.  Tit  46.)  "  Faith  is  not  to  be  kept 
with   heretics,  as  neither  with   tyrants,  pirates, 

nor  public  robbers Certain   heretics  were 

therefore,  justly  burned  by  the  solemn  judgment 
of  the  Council  of  Constance,  although  promise 
of  security  had  been  given  them.  For  if  faith  be 
not  kept  with  tyrants,  pirates,  and  other  robbers, 
who  kill  the  body,  much  less  with  heretics  who 
destroy  souls."     This  writer  was  a   Bishop,  a 


170 


Canonist,  and  a  Civilian ;  and  was  surely  of  a 
very  "  different  opinion"  from  you  as  to  the 
Council  of  Constance.  He  also  cites  Salamo- 
nius,  and  Placa,  as  holding  the  same  doctrine. 
And  not  only  so,  but  Popes  in  great  numbers, 
have  in  word  and  deed  maintained  the  same  gene- 
ral principle.  Gregory  IX.,  Urban  VI.,  Paul  V., 
Innocent  X.,Honorious,Eugenius  IV.  ,&c. avowed 
this  infamous  principle.  And  worse  than  all, 
Councils  have  done  the  same.  The  3d  and  4th 
Councils  of  Lateran,  the  Council  of  Lyons,  and 
Pisa,  as  well  as  the  Councils  of  Constance,  held 
the  same  shocking  doctrine.  Why  therefore, 
should  we  stop  to  contend  for  one  case,  when  it 
has  been  the  common  doctrine,  and  practice  of 
the  church  of  Rome  to  keep  no  faith  with  here- 
tics ? 

6.  You  strangely  expose  yourself  in  the  al- 
leged omission  of  the  word  "  dubio.''''  That  wbrd 
Was  in  my  manuscript  when  it  went  to  the 
press ;  it  was  corrected  by  me  in  the  proof-sheet, 
on  Saturday  ;  it  was  in  the  revised  proof,  which 
I  corrected  on  Monday;  it  was  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian, and  Herald,  of  Wednesday  and  Thursday  ; 
and  I  did  not  see  your  strange  critique  on  its  ab- 
sence until  the  next  Saturday !  Charge  me  not 
then  With  want  of  candour;  while  you  "  strain  at 
gnats,  and  swallow  camels."  I  cannot  consent 
to  cover  your  blunders  and  cavils,  at  the  price  of 
owning  what  I  never  did. 

7.  After  the  above  statement,  the  charge  of 
""  garbling"  will  be  interpreted,  without  the  need 
of  my  disproving  it  a  third  time. 

8.  "The  considerable  undertone"  of  Protes- 
tant and  Presbyterian  dissatisfaction  dies  away 
before  my  call  for  proof;  and  "the  general*'  im- 
pression that  the  Bishop's  charge  was  intended  as 
a  prop  to  my  weak  arguments,  shrinks  into  "  let 
me  suppose  that  I  was  mistaken."  But  you  are 
assuredly  Very  much  mistaken  when  you  think 
that  the  Protestant  press  is  receding  from  the 
publication  of  your  letters.  I  am  acquainted 
with  almost  twenty  Protestant  papers  that  pub- 
lish this  controversy.  If  then  your  reasoning  is 
just  in  explaining  their  pretended  suppression  of 
it  into  a  token  of  defeat,  What  conclusion  must 
we  draw  from  this  redundant  and  undaunted  re- 
publication? Not  surely  that  Protestants  despair 
of  the  truth,  or  shrink  from  free  inquiry. 


9.  You  seem  much  disturbed  by  my  retorting 
your  figure  of  the  serpent  stinging  the  bosom  that 
nurtured  it.  I  assure  you  I  meant  neither  to  stir  the 
American  people  to  disturb  the  equal  rights  of 
our  Roman  Catholic  citizens,  nor  to  charge  those 
citizens  with  being  designing  or  ungrateful ;  and 
no  ingenuity  can  pervert  my  language  so  as  to 
convey  this  meaning.  It  was  not  to  the  people, 
but  to  the  priesthood  I  referred,  when  retorting 
your  charge  against  Presbyterians.  I  informed 
you  that  the  nation  was  awaking  to  a  proper  dis- 
covery of  their  influence  and  designs.  No  man 
can  be  a  consistent  Roman  Catholic  Priest  under 
such  bonds  and  vows  to  a  foreign  prince,  and  spi- 
ritual dictator,  without  being  of  necessity  exclu- 
sive, aiid  an  eager  proselyter  of  all  men  to  his  pe- 
culiar system.  The  history  of  the  Jesuits,  (who 
have  been  called,  by  a  strange  union  of  discord- 
ant terms  and  dissimilar  beings,  "  the  militia  of 
Jesus")  is  ample  evidence  of  the  truth  of  my  as- 
sertion. 

As  to  the  sum  which  you  say  has  been  expended 
on  Dickinson  College,  Carlisle,  I  take  it  on  your 
word  to  be  so.  If  Presbyterians  (as  formerly  at 
Carlisle,)  are  selected  by  our  public  institutions  to 
aid  in  their  instruction,  I  leave  you  to  determine 
whether  it  be  their  crime,  their  calamity,  or  their 
honour  and  duty  to  serve  them  :  and  if  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  State  choose,  in  its  bounty,  to  assist 
these  institutions,  whether  you  will  condemn 
them  for  it  ?  You  should  have  known  the  histo- 
ry of  Dickinson  College  better,  however  than  to 
call  it  a  "  Presbyterian  College."  I  would  re- 
mind you  also,  that  Papal  money  is  poured  into 
this  country  from  year  to  year  for  the  very  purpose 
of  proselyting  us  heretics,  aud  building  up  institu- 
tions for  the  establishment  of  Popery  among  us.- 
In  the  year  1828,  120,000  franks  were  confessedly 
(I  know  not  how  much  more  in  reality)  sent  from 
Rome  to  sustain  your  cause  in  this  country  !  You 
compel  me  reluctantly  to  dwell  on  these  topics. 
I  hope  in  your  next  to  see  manly  arguments  in  a 
Christian  spirit,  and  a  cessation  of  that  low  and 
vulgar  warfare  which  must  speedily  weary  the 
patient  and  kind  readers  of  our  letters. 

Yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinridge, 


CONTROVERSY N°.  23. 


Is  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Religion  of*  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  July  3,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir — In  your  letter  No.  XX.  when  we 
were  discussing  the  previous  question,  you  gave, 
as  the  definition  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith, 
"  The  word  of  God  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament ;"  and  because  I 
did  not  attack  the  "  word  of  God,"  you  charge 
me  with  having  evaded  "  the  real  Protestant  rule 
of  faith,  and  argued  against  its  abuses  alone !" 
If  you  had  thus  candidly,  given  up  private  inter- 
pretation as  an  "  abuse''  at  the  commencement  of 
the  discussion,  we  might  have  saved  much  time 
and  labour.  But  I  am  surprised,  and  indeed  gra- 
tified, to  perceive  that  good  sense,  and  the  press- 
ing necessities  of  the  case,  urged  you,  finally,  to 
yield,  however  reluctantly,  so  precious  a  tribute  to 
the  majesty  of  Truth.  It  certainly  did  not  occur 
to  you  that  by  this  admission,  you  sapped  the 
very  foundations  of  the  Protestant  religion,  since 
it  is  known  to  all  men  that  this  very  "  abuse"  is 
the  parent  of  the  Reformation. 

When  I  ask  you  to  define  the  Protestant  reli- 
gion, you  tell  me-,  that  it  is  "  a  religion  which  pro- 
tests against  the  (supposed)  errors  of  the  Catho- 
lic church,"  (in  so  much  the  definition  applies  to 
Deism  as  well  as  Protestantism,  since  both  pro- 
test against  the  same  doctrines,)  "  and  which  is 
derived  exclusively  from,  and  consistent  with,  the 
Holy  Scriptures  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice."  This  is  your  definition. 
But  how  is  the  Protestant  religion  "  derived" 
from  the  Scriptures  1  Is  it  not  by  private  inter- 
pretation ?  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  will  you  "  derive" 
your  religion  through  a  medium  which  you,  your- 
self, have  denounced  as  an  "  abuse?'" 

Again,  the  Protestant  religion  is  "  a  religion 
consistent  with  the  Holy  Scriptures."  But  who  is 
to  be  the  judge  of  this  1  Or  how  is  it  to  be  de- 
termined whether  any  particular  doctrine  of  Pro- 
testantism is  "  consistent"  with  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures or  not  ?  Does  not  this  position  again,  be- 
tray the  "  radical  delusion"  of  the  whole  system? 
Every  sect  considers  that  its  own  notions  are 
«'  derived  from,  and  consistent  with  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures." And  pray,  do  the  Holy  Scriptures 
contain,  in  reality,  the  notions  of  every  sect  of 
Protestants'?  If  we  admit  the  principle  of  your 
definition  at  all,  it  will  be  as  favourable  to  the 
Protestant  who  denies  the  Trinity  of  persons  in 
God,  as  to  him  who  admits  it ; — to  the  one  who 
holds  that  there  is  no  sacrament,  as  to  the  other 
who  maintains  that  there  are,  at  least,  two,  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper.  Every  sect  main- 
tains that  US  own  peculiar  prejudices  are  "  derived 
c* 


from  and  consistent  with  the  Holy  Scriptures," 
and  how  am  I  to  know  which  are  the  doctrines 
that  are  really,  and  truly,  derived  from  the  sacred 
volume  ? 

You  make  the  following  Statement,  in  the  first 
paragraph  of  your  last  letter. — "  If,  as  you  say,  I 
am  the  original  assailant,  why  do  you  tell  mo  that 
mine  is  the  business  of  defence  !"  Answer.  Be- 
cause, when  I  held  you  responsible  as  the  original 
assailant,  it  was  as  the  challenger  "  of  priests 
and  bishops"  to  the  field  of  controversy;  but  it 
was  agreed,  that  we  should  commence  by  the  rule 
of  faith.  Those  who  have  read  your  letters 
through,  to  the  final  and  very  memorable  conces- 
sion, by  which  you  recognise  "private  interpreta- 
tion" as  an  "  abuse,"  will  be  able  to  appreciate 
the  merits  of  your  "  defence"  of  the  Protestant 
rule  of  faith.  The  second  question  to  be  exami- 
ned, according  to  mutual  agreement,  was,  whe- 
ther "the  Protestant  Religion  be  the  Religion  of 
Christ."  Now  I  undertake,  as  the  very  question 
supposes,  to  prove  that  it  is  not:  and  I  should  sup- 
pose that  yours  was  the  opposite  side  of  the  case, 
which  I  intimated  by  saying  that  yours  is  the 
"  business  of  defence."  This  is  the  position  se-  , 
lected  by  yourself,  as  may  be  seen  by  referring  to 
your  last  letter  in  the  preliminary  correspondence, 
where  you  say,  "  I  am  to  defend  the  Protestant 
faith.''''  The  sincere  inquirer,  who  looked  to  your 
last  letter,  for  this  promised  "  defence"  of  the  Pro- 
testant religion,  must  have  found  himself  mortify- 
ingly  disappointed. 

In  my  last  letter  I  reduced  the  question  to  the 
simplicity  of  a  dilemma,  from  which  I  defy  you  to 
escape.  It  is  this:  Either  the  Protestant  religion 
is  a  religion  differing  from  the  religion  of  Christ; 
— and  by  this  admission  you  give  up  the  ques- 
tion ; — or  else,  the  religion  of  Christ  was  not  pro- 
fessed  by  any  society  of  Christians,  previous  to  the 
time  of  Luther.  And  in  that  case,  the  religion  of 
Christ  is  only  three  hundred  years  old !  !  To 
which  of  these"  alternatives  do  you  choose  to 
cling  1  for,  one  of  them  is  inevitable.  To  this  ar- 
gument, you  oppose  the  "  defence"  of — silence. 
Not  a  word  of  authority ;  not  a  word  of  reason* 
ing !     Silence  only,  prudent  silence. 

My  second  argument  grew  out  of  the  first :  It 
was  this,  that  whenever  God  gave  new  doctrines, 
such  as  the  Protestant  religion  was,  when  Lu- 
ther and  the  rest  began  to  preach  it ;  he  always 
gave,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  preachers  of  such 
doctrines,  the  gift  of  miracles,  to  show  that  they 
were  not  impostors ,-  this  gift,  however,  was  de- 
nied to  the  authors  of  the  Protestant  religion,  and 
therefore  the  inference  is,  that  God  never  deputed 


182 


them.  To  this  argument  the  only  answer  given 
is,  that  "  we  (Protestants)  profess  no  new  reli- 
gion." That  you  say  so,  I  admit.  But  in  order 
to  show  this,  you  were  hound  to  prove  that  your 
religion  had  been  professed  by  some  society,  in  some 
part  of  the  world,  in  some  age,  hetween  the  preach- 
ing of  Christ,  and  the  preaching  of  Luther.  But 
there  was  no  such  society,  and  therefore  your  gra- 
tuitous assertion  of  the  Protestant  religion's  not 
being  a  "  new  religion,"  must  go  for  nothing. 
We  require  proof. 

My  third  argument  was,  that  the  Protestant  re- 
ligion being  a  religion  of  opinions,  is  not  the  re- 
ligion of  Christ,  which  was  a  religion  of  positive 
truths.  Consequently  that  they  are  not  the  same. 
To  this  you  give  no  reply,  except  that  I  luid  in- 
troduced it  before.'.'.'  But  it  has  never  been  an- 
swered; nor  has  even  an  attempt  been  made  at  a 
refutation  of  it.  The  one  was  a  religion  of  cer- 
tainty, the  other  is  a  religion  of  chance.  Can  you 
deny  this  ! 

My  fourth  argument  was  that  the  Reformers 
themselves  denounced  each  other  as  heretics  and 
deceivers  of  souls.  And  to  this  argument  you  re- 
ply that  it  "  will  be  easily  exposed  and  turned 
directly  against  me."  As  if  this  invalidated  the 
inference  which  it  furnishes  against  the  religion, 
of  which  these  Reformers  were  the  authors .'  These 
few  remarks  of  yours,  are  the  only  testimony  con- 
tained in  the  whole  of  your  last  letter,  to  show 
the  reader  that  "the  Protestant  religion,  is  the 
religion  of  Christ." 

As  to  your  objections  against  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  church,  even  if  they  were  well 
founded,  they  do  not  appertain  to  the  present  sub- 
ject ;  and  you  will  recollect  that  one  of  our  rules 
binds  us  "  to  adhere  strictly  to  the  subject  of  de- 
bate for  the  time  being,  and  to  admit  no  second  to- 
pic until  the  first  shall  have  been  exhausted." 
In  obedience  to  this  regulation,  I  shall  pay  no  at- 
tention to  any  thing  you  may  have  to  say  against 
the  Catholic  doctrine,  until  we  shall  have  discussed 
the  present  question,  viz.-  "whether  the  Protestant 
religion  is  the  religion  of  Christ."  But  that 
question  once  disposed  of,  I  shall  allow  you  "  to 
take  up  any  doctrine  of  the  church,  and  I  shall 
hold  myself  prepared  to  refute  all  the  arguments 
you  may  bring  against  it." 

The  candid  reader,  who  wishes  to  investigate 
the  grounds  of  his  religion  with  a  view  of  arriv- 
ing at  the  truth,  should  reject  from  his  mind 
every  preconceived  opinion,  which,  on  examina- 
tion, he  does  not  find  to  have  been  established  on 
the  basis  of  facts.  The  supposition  which  Pro- 
testantism holds  forth  to  its  votaries,  is,  that  the 
religion  of  Christ,  established  in  its  purity,  by 
the  Apostles,  gradually,  and,  what  is  rather 
etranwe,  imperceptibly,  became  corrupted,  and  was 
finally  restored  to  its  primitive  purity,  in  the  IGth 
century  of  the  church,  by  the  event  which  is  called 
the  "Reformation."  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  to  save 
you  the  trouble,  at  this  moment,  of  straying  from 
the  question,  to  prove  that  this  was  the  case,  let  us 
suppose  for  sake  of  argument  that  it  was.  Let  us 
suppose  that  Christ  after  having  promised  to  be 
with  his  church,  in  the  teaching  of  "  all  nations, 


till  the  end  of  time,"  violated  his  'promise  ;  and 
that,  in  fact,  all  Christendom  was  buried,  as  the 
English  Homily  book  has  it,  "in  damnable  idol- 
atry for  the  space  of  eight  hundred  years  and 
more" — and  starting  even  from  this  extravagant 
supposition,  you  will  find  it  a  difficult  task  to 
prove  that  "the  Protestant  religion  is  the  religion 
of  Christ."     And  why"? 

1.  Because  no  man  can  tell  what  the  Protestant 
religion  is.  We  know  it  as  a  compound  of  heteroge- 
neous opinions  about  the  meaning  of  the  Bible.  As 
you  have  defined  it,  you  have  bound  yourself  to  prove 
that    Quakerism,    Episcopalianism,    Baptistism, 
Methodistism,  Presbyterianism,Universalism,  Ar- 
minianism,  Unitarianism,  Swedenborgianism,  are 
all  "  the  religion  of  Christ ;"  since  the  mercy  of 
your  definition   graciously  embraces  them   all ! 
Each  of  them  is  "a  religion,  exclusively  derived 
from,  and  consistent  with  the  holy  Scriptures  as 
the  only  infallible   rule  of  faith  and  practice." 
Now,  Rev.  Sir,  permit  me  to   ask  you,  did  you 
seriously  intend  to  distribute,  as  your  definition 
imports,    the   religion  of  Christ   equally    among 
all  these  sects'?     Do  you  mean  to  defend  the  doc- 
trines of  all  these  denominations  ?     For  all  these 
according  to  your  definition,  constitute  the   Pro- 
testant religion  ;  and  this  you  have  undertaken  to 
vindicate,   as    "  the   religion   of  Christ."     How 
much  wiser  would  it  have  been  in  you,  to  have 
borrowed  the  language  of  the  celebrated  Bishop 
Watson,  of  the  church  of  England,  and  told  us 
that   the  Protestant   religion   is   that   system   of 
Christian  liberty,  in  which  "  a  man  believes  what 
he  pleases  ,•  and  professes  what  he  believes."   Sen- 
tire  quae  velit,  et  quse  sentit,  loqui. 

2.  But  by  another  definition  you  have  said  that 
the  Protestant  religion  is  "the  religion  of  the  Re- 
formation." Now  the  only  way  to  ascertain  the 
religion  of  the  Reformation,  is  by  bringing  to 
view  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformers  as  stated  by 
themselves.  To  begin  then  with  the  father  of 
that  revolution,  he  tells  us  that  "  God  works  the 

evil  in  us,   as  well  as  the  good." Is  this 

"the  religion  of  Christ  1"  And  that  "  by  his 
own  will,  he  (God)  necessarily  renders  us  worthy 
of  damnation,  so  as  to  seem  to  take  pleasure  in 
the  torments  of  the  miserable."  (Luth.  Opera,  ed. 
Wittemb.  Tom.  ii.  p.  437.)  Is  this  "the  religion 
of  Christ!"  Again.  "  If  God  foresaw,  says  he, 
that  Judas  would  be  a  traitor,  Judas  was  com- 
pelled to  be  a  traitor  ,•  nor  was  it  hi  his  power  to 
be  otherwise."  (Luth.  de  Servo.  Arbit.  fol.  460.) 
Is  this  the  religion  of  Christ  V  "  Man's  will  is, 
(says  the  same  Reformer,)  like  a  horse  :  if  God 
sit  upon  it ;  it  goes  as  God  would  have  it;  if  the 
Devil  ride  it,  it  goes  as  the  Devil  would  have  it; 
nor  can  the  will  choose  its  rider,  but  each  of 
them  (viz:  God  and  the  Devil)  strives  which  shall 
get  possession  of  it."  (Ibid.  vol.  ii.)  Is  this  "the 
religion  of  Christ ?"  "Let  this  be  your  rule," 
(continues  the  same  father,)  "  in  interpreting 
the  Scriptures  ;  whenever  they  command  a  good 
work,  do  you  understand  that  they  forbid  it." 
(Ibid.  Tom.  iii.  p.  171.)  Is  this,  Rev.  Sir,  "the 
religion  of  Christ."  O  what  a  task  you  have  un- 
dertaken ! 


183 


•  And  now  let  us  see  what  Calvin,  your  own 
Calvin,  puts  forth  as  "the  religion  of  the  Refor- 
mation," which,1  you  say  is,  the  religion  of  Christ. 
"  God  requires,  says  he,  nothing  of  us  hut  faith  ; 
he  asks  nothing  of  us  hut  that  we  helieve." 
(Calv.  Inst.  L.  iii.  c.  23.)  "  It  is  plainly  wrong 
to  seek  for  any  other  cause,  of  damnation,  than  the 
hidden  counsels  of  God. "••••"  Men,  by  the  free 
will  of  God,  without  any  demerit  of  their  own, 
are  predestined  to  eternal  death."  (Ibid.)  Is  this 
"  the  religion  of  Christ  V  The  whole  ope- 
ration of  this  doctrine  is  to  produce  fanaticism 
in  belief,  and  quietude  of  conscience  in  the  midst 
of  immorality.  This  same  impious  doctrine  of 
Calvin,  is  well  approved,  in  the  Presbyterian 
Confession  of  faith  as  amended  in  the  year  1821. 

"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of 
his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated 
unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  fore-ordained  to 
everlasting  death." 

These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and 
fore-ordained,  we  particularly  and  unchangeably 
designed  ;  and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  de- 
finite, that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  dimin- 
ished. (Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  p.  16, 
17.)  Now,  what  else  is  this,  but  saying,  with  Cal- 
vin, that  "  the  hidden  counsel  God,  is  the  sole  cause 
of  damnation  ?" 

There  are  few  persons  who  will  not  acknow- 
ledge the  justice  of  the  following  commentary,  on 
this  doctrine  of  Calvin,  by  a  Protestant  compan- 
ion of  his  own.  "  He  is  a  false  God,"  says  this 
author,  "who  (according  to  Calvin's  showing)  is 
so  slow  to  mercy,  so  quick  to  wrath,  who  has 
created  the  greatest  part  of  mankind  to  destroy 
them,  and  has  not  only  predestined  them  to  dam- 
nation, but  even  to  the  cause  of  their  damnation. 
This  God,  then,  must  have  determined  from  all 
eternity,  and  he  now  actually  wishes  and  causes 
that  we  be  necessitated  to  sin ,-  so  that  thefts,  adul- 
teries and  murders,  are  never  committed  but  at  his 
impulse  ,■  for  he  suggests  to  men  perverse  and 
shameful  affections  ;  he  hardens  them  not  merely 
by  simple  permission,  but  actually  and  efficacious- 
ly ,  so  that  the  wicked  man  accomplishes  the 
work  of  God  and  not  his  own,  and  it  is  no  longer 
Satan,  but  Calvin's  God,  who  is  really  the  father 
of  lies.  (Castel.  in  lib  de  Praedest  ad  Calvin.)  Is 
this,  Rev.  sir,  "the  Religion  of  Christ]" 

This,  however,  was  the  religion  of  the  Refor- 
mation:— of  Luther,  who  maintained  that  the  will  of 
man  is  a  horse,  alternately  bestridden,  by  God  and 
the  Devil,  whichever  succeeds  to  mount  first,  and 
is  always  obedient  to  its  rider,  for  the  time  being. 
This  was  the  religion  of  Geneva,  as  we  have  seen. 
This  was  the  religion  of  England  itself,  as  some 
of  its  most  eminent  divines  admit  and  deplore,  as 
for  instance,  Bishop  Bancroft.  (A  survey  of  the 
pretended  holy  discipline,  p.  44.)  But  we  have 
nearer  testimony  than  that  of  an  English  Bishop. 
Doctor  Samuel  Miller  of  Princeton,  tells  us,  in 
his  Introductory  Lectures  on  "  creeds  and  con- 
fessions," that  "  the  Calvinistic  articles  of  the 
church  of  England  were  the  means  of  keeping  her 
doctrinally  pure,  to  a  very  remarkable  degree,  for 
the  greater  part  of  a  hundred  years  !     In  the  reign 


of  James  the  1st,  says  the  Doctor,  very  few  oppo- 
nents of  Calvinism  dared  to  avow  their  opinions; 
and  of  those  who  did  avow  them,  numbers  were 
severely  disciplined,  and  others  saved  themselves 
from  similar  treatment  by  subsequent  silence  and 
discretion.''''  (p.  GO.)  Those  must  have  been  glo- 
rious days  for  England,  when,  for  nearly  a  hund- 
red years,  her  church  was  almost  pure,  thanks, 
not  to  the  Bible,  but  to  her  "  Calvinistic  articles," 
against  which  no  onu  "  dared"  to  say  a  word. 

Here  then,  is  only  one  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Reformation,  by  which  we  see  free  will  extin- 
guished ; — and  man  degraded  from  his  station  as 
a  moral  and  responsible  agent,  to  a  mere  machine, 
operated  on  for  evil  as  well  as  good,  by  a  predes- 
tinating influence,  over  which  he  has  no  controul. 
On  the  other  hand  we  see  God  himself,  represent- 
ed as  punishing,  with  eternal  damnation,  his  crea- 
tures for  having  clone,  what  they  could  not  avoid, 
by  complying  with  those  inevitable  decrees,  which 
had  been  framed  in  the  solitude  of  eternity  past. 
Is  this  "  the  Religion  of  Christ  V 

5.  But  supposing,  as  Protestants  do,  that  the 
true  religion,  contrary  to  the  promise  of  the  Sa- 
viour, had  disappeared  from  the  world  ; — were  the 
Reformers,  I  ask,  such  men  as  God  would  have 
employed  to  restore  it  1  I  am  aware  that  under 
the  influence  of  those  strong  feelings  with  which 
that  turbulent  epoch  abounded,  their  opponents  may 
have  done  injustice  to  their  character.  On  this 
account,  I  shall  not  give  one  line  on  the  testimo- 
ny of  their  Catholic  cotemporaries.  Such  testimo- 
ny would  naturally  be  received  with  suspicion  by 
my  Protestant  readers.  Injustice  to  all  parties, 
then,  I  shall  give  the  fathers  of  the  Protestant  re- 
ligion as  they  describe  themselves,  and  as  they 
describe  each  other.  But  first  let  me  state  who 
were  the  principal  personages,  hy  whom  this 
great  work  was  accomplished. 

Luther,  an  Augustinian  friar,  fficolampadius, 
a  monk.  'Melancthon,  a  professor  of  Greek.  Zuin- 
o-lius,  a  cure  in  Switzerland.  Bucer,  a  Dominican 
friar.  Calvin,  a  French  ecclesiastic.  Ochin,  a 
Capuchin  friar.  Henry  the  8th  in  England.  And 
in  Scotland,  Jno.  Knox,  a  priest,  whom  Dr.  Sam- 
uel Johnson  describes  as  "  the  ruffian  of  the  Re- 
formation." 

Luther  says  of  himself,  that  "  while  a  Catho- 
lic he  passed  his  life  in  austerities,  in  watchings, 
in  fasts  and  praying,  in  poverty,  chastity  and 
obedience."  (Tom.  v.  In  cap.  1.  ad  Gal.  v.  14.) 
But  hear  what  he  says  of  himself,  after  his  "  re- 
formation." "As  it  does  not  depend  on  me  not 
to  be  a  man,  so  neither  does  it  depend  on  me  to 
be  without  a  woman."  (Ibid.  Serm.  de  Matrim. 
p.  119.) 

Melancthon  who  was  his  very  Boswell,  tes- 
tifies that  he  received  blows  from  him,  "  ab  ipso 
colaphos  accepi."  (Lett,  to  Theodore)  "  I  trem- 
ble says  he  (writing  to  the  same  friend)  when  I 
think  of  the  passions  of  Luther;  they  yield  not 
in  violence  to  the  passions  of  Hercules." 

Hospinian,  another  reformer,  says,  speaking  of 
Luther,  "  This  man  is  absolutely  mad.  He 
never  ceases  to  combat  truth  against  all  justice, 
even  against  the  cry  of  his  own  conscience." 


184 


(Ecolampadius  said  of  him,  "He  is  puffed  up 
up  with  pride  and  arrogance,  and  seduced  by 
Satan."  And-  Zuinglius  corroborates  this  testi- 
mony. "Yes"  says  he,  "the  Devil  has  made 
himself  master  of  Luther." 

After  the  death  of  Zuinglius,  however,  Luther 
pronounced  on  him  the  following  panegyrick  in 
return,  "  Zuinglius,  is  dead  and  damned,  hav- 
ing desired  like  a  thief  and  a  rebel,  to  compel  others, 
to  follow  hi3  error.  (Tom.  11.  p.  36.  in  Florim.) 

The  whole  church  of  Zurick  (against  Luther's 
Confession,  page  61,)  writes  as  follows,  "  Lu- 
ther treats  us  as  an  execrable  and  condemned  sect, 
"but  let  him  take  care  lest  he  condemn  himself  as 
an  arch-heretic,  from  the  sole  fact,  that  he  will 
not  and  cannot  associate  with  those  who  confess 
Christ.  But  how  strangely  does  this  fellow  al- 
low himself  to  be  carried  away  by  his  devils. 
How  disgusting  is  his  language,  and  how  full 
are  his  words  of  the  Devil  of  Hell  !  He  says 
that  the  devils  dwell  now  and  forever  in  the  bodies 

of  the  Zuinglians. He   wrote   his  works  by 

the  impulse  and  the  dictation  of  the  Devil,  with 
whom  he  had  dealings,  and  who  in  the  struggle 
seemed  to  have  thrown  him  by  victorious  argu- 
ments,"    (Ibid.) 

"In  very  truth,"  said  Calvin,  "Luther  is  ex- 
tremely corrupt (cited  by  C.  Schlusomberg,) 

would  to  God  that  he  had  been  attentive  to  disco- 
ver his  vices."  (Theol.  Calv.  L.  11.  fol.  126.) 
Calvin  elsewhere  speaks  very  contemptuously 
of  the  Lutheran  Church ;  (in  his  reply  to 
Westphal)  he  says,  "  Thy  school  is  nothing  but 
a  stinking  pig-stye;  dost  thou  hear  me,  thou 
dogl  dost  thou  hear  me,  thou  mad-man'?  dost 
thou  hear  me,  thou  huge  beast?" 

Of  Carlosladius,  Melancthon  says  that  "he 
was  a  brutal  fellow,  without  wit  or  learning,  or 
any  light  of  common  sense;  who,  far  from  hav- 
ing any  mark  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  never  either 
knew  or  practiced  any  of  the  duties  of  civilized 
life."  To  Calvin  himself,  however,  the  testimo- 
ny of  his  brother  reformers,  is  certainly  not  very 
favourable. 

"Calvin,"  said  Bucer,  "is  a  true  mad  dog.  The 
man  is  wicked  and  he  judges  of  people  according 
as  as  loves  or  hates  them."  Boudoin  could  not 
bear  him,  because  as  he  says,  he  found  him  to  be 
vindictive  and  blood  thirsty,  "propter  nemiam 
vindictce  et  sanguinis  sitim."  This  was  the  rea- 
son alleged  by  him  for  renouncing  Calvin's  doc- 
trine. 

Stancharus,  one  of  the  Reformers,  addressing 
his  brother  of  Geneva  writes  "  what  demon  has 
urged  thee,  O  Calvin!  to  declaim  with  the  Ari- 
ans  against  the  Son  of  God  ? It  is  that  anti- 
christ of  the  north  that  thou  hast  the  imprudence 
to  adore,  that  grammarian,  Melancthon."  (de 
Mediat  in  Calv.  instit.  No.  4.)  "  Beware  Chris- 
tian readers,  (he  continues,)  above  all,  ye  minis- 
ters of  the  word,  beware  of  the  books  of  Calvin. 
They  contain  an  impious  doctrine,  the  blasphe- 
mies of  Arianism,  as  if  the  spirit  of  Michael 
Seryetus  had  escaped  from  the  executioner,  and 
according  to  the  system  of  Plato  had  transmigra- 
ted whole  and  entire  into  Calvin,''''  (Ibid  No.  3.) 


Now,  Rev.  Sir,  if  Catholics  had  written  these 
things  of  the  Reformers,  I  should  not  have  trou- 
bled you  with  a  single  quotation.  But  these  are 
the  Reformers  themselves,  speaking  of  each  other  : 
and  of  each  other,  in  the  exclusive  capacity  of 
Reformers  !  Their  private  character  affords  mat- 
ter for  quite  as  painful  a  chapter.  But  the  ques- 
tion will  naturally  force  itself  on  every  reflecting 
mind,  "  if  the  promise  of  Jesus  Christ  failed,  in 
preserving  the  purity  of  the  doctrine  which  he 
brought  from  heaven,  is  it  likely  that  these  are 
the  men  whom  God  would  have  appointed  to  re. 
form  his  Church  ?  If  they  spoke  the  truth  of  each 
other,  then  it  is  evident  that  they  were  lost  to 
all  principle  of  religious  rectitude .-  but  if  they 
calumniated  each  other,  it  is  clear  that  they  were, 
utter  strangers  to  truth,  and  moral  integrity." 
In  either  case  their  testimony  proves,  that  both 
themselves  and  their  doctrines  stood  quite  as 
much  in  need  of  being  reformed,  after  the  "  Re- 
formation" as  before. 

But  were  the  morals  of  their  followers  improv- 
ed, by  joining  in  that  ecclesiastical  insurrection 
of  which  they  were  the  prime  agitators  1— And 
through  which  they  pressed  onward,  in  the  spirit 
of  unanimous  discord.  Let  us  hear  their  own 
testimony  on  the  subject. 

"  The  world,"  says  Luther,  (Serm.  in  Postil. 
Evang.  i.  adv.)  "grows  every  day  worse  and 
worse°  It  is  plain  that  men  are  much  more  cove- 
tous, malicious,  and  resentful ;  much  more  unruly, 
shameless,  and  full  of  vice,  than  thev  were  in 
the  time  of  Poperv."  "Formerly,"  says  he 
(Serm.  Dom.  26  post  Trim)  "  when  we  were  se- 
duced by  the  Pope,  men  willingly  followed  good 
works,  but  now  all  their  study  is  to  get  every 
thing  to  themselves,  by  exactions,  pillage,  theft, 
lying,  usury."  The  writings  of  this  prime  Re- 
former, abound  with  similar  testimonies,  which 
proves  that  as  regarded  morals  at  least,  the  Refor- 
mation was  all  in  the  inverse  ratio.  Aurifaber,  Lu- 
ther's biographer,  reports  him  to  have  declared  that 
"  since  the  appearance  of  Gospel"  (meaning  his 
own  separation  from  all  the  religions  in  the  world 
as  well  as  the  Catholic  Church)  virtue  seems  to  be 
utterly  extinct,  and  piety  driven  from  the  earth." 

But  however  the  Reformers  may  have  quarrel- 
led about  their  doctrines,  they  are  unanimous  in 
their  testimony,  as  to  the  retrograde  movement  of 
public  and  private  morals,  immediately  subse- 
quent to  what  they  called  the  "  preaching  of  the 
Gospel."  Bucer's  evidence  accords  exactly  with 
that  of  Luther.  "  The  greater  part  of  the  peo- 
ple," says  he,  "  seem  only  to  have  embraced  the 
Gospel,  in  order  to  shake  off  the  yoke  of  disci- 
pline, and  the  obligation  of  fasting,  penance,  &c. 
which  lay  upon  them  in  the  time  of  Popery;  and 
to  live  at  their  pleasure,  enjoying  their  lust,  and 
laioless  appetites  without  control.  They  therefore 
lend  a  willing  ear  to  the  doctrine  that  we  are  jus- 
tified by  faith  alone,  and  not  by  good  works,  hav- 
ing no  relish  for  them."  (Bucer  de  regn.  Christ. 
L.\  c.  4.)  Calvin's  testimony  is  to  the  same 
effect.  "Of  so  many  thousands,"  says  he, 
"seemingly  eager  in  embracing  the  Gospel,  how 
few  have  since  amended  their  lives  ?     Nay,  to  what 


185 


else  does  the  greater  part  pretend,  except  by  shak- 
ing off  the  heavy  yoke  of  superstition,  to  launch 
out  more  freely,  into  every  kind  of  lascivious- 
ness."     (Calv.  1.  vi.  do  scand.) 

These  testimonies,  Rev.  Sir,  [coming  from 
such  witnesses,  will  convince  you  that  the  mor- 
als of  the  people,  (the  low  condition  of  which 
you  have  set  forth  as  a  plea  for  the  insubordina- 
tion of  those  spiritual  chieftains,)  instead  of  be- 
ing improved,  became  absolutely  deteriorated  by 
their  walking  in  the  footsteps  of  the  change  ;— 
and  that  the  effect  of  the  Reformation,  was  as 
Dr.   Chalmers   declares,    "to  reform  men   into 


Returning  then,  to  the  extravagant  supposition, 
which  for  the  present  I  shall  not  dispute  with 
you,  viz  :  that  the   gates  of  hell  had  prevailed 
acrainst  the  church  of  Christ,  contrary  to  Ms  pro- 
mise.-—that  she  had  ceased  to  be.  "  the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth,"  as  described  by  St.  Paul;— 
and  viewing  the  impiety  of  the  Reformers'  doctrine, 
on  the  uselsssness  of  good  works  ;  the  absence  of 
free  will  in  man,— the  fatalism  in  all  things„by 
predestination :— viewing    the    character    which 
they  themselves  give  of  each  other, — the  bitter- 
ness of  their  language,— the  coarseness  of  their 
mutual  denunciations ;— the   crimes  and  corrup- 
tions of  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  reciprocally  im- 
puted;— viewing,  in  a  word,  the  concordance  of 
their  testimony,  as  to  the  increasing  depravity  of 
•  morals  which  distinguished  those  who  followed 
in  the    wake    of  the  "  Gospel ;"     ask  yourself 
whether  the   religion   of  that  undefineable  com- 
pound called  the  "  Reformation,"  can  be  the  reli- 
gion  of  Christ.     Is  there  any  resemblance   be- 
tween the  doctrines  of  the  one,  and  the  blasphemies 
of  the  other  1     Between  the  Apostles  of  the  one, 
and  the  inventors  or  revivers  of  the  other?  Between 
the  moral  effects  of  the  one,  and  the  progressive  im- 
morality of  the  other  ?     Reflect,  I  pray  you,  on 
all  this,  and  remembering  that  an  infallible  judge 
will  review  all  our  judgments,  ask  yourself,  whe- 
ther such  doctrines,  originated  by  such  men,  and 
followed  by  such  consequences,  are  >'  ^he  religion 
of  Jesus  Christ."  H      ■ 

"The  religion  of  the  Reformation"  teaches  that 
there  are  two  sacraments,  according  to  the  Cal- 
vinists ;  and  it  teaches  also,  that  there  are  no  sa- 
craments, according  to  the  Quakers.  It  teaches 
that  infant  baptism  is  sufficient,  according  to  the 
Presbyterians;  and  that  infant  baptism  is  not 
sufficient,  according  to  the  Baptists — "He  that 
believeth,  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  It 
teaches  that  there  is  a  real  distinction  between 
Bishops  and  Presbyters,  according  to  the  Epis- 
copalians; it  teaches  that  there  is  no  such  distinc- 
tion, according  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith.  It  teaches  that  there  is  a  hell  for  the 
wioked,  according  to  the  Methodists  ;  it  teaches 
that  there  is  no  hell  according  to  the  Universalis^. 
It  teaches  thot  Christ  is  corporeally  present  in 
the  Eucharist,  according  to  Luther  ;  it  teaches 
that  there  is  no  such  presence,  according  to  Cal- 
vin ;  whilst,  to  the  believers  in  the  thirty-nine  ar- 
ticles and  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  it  teaches 
that  Christ  is,  at  the  same  time,  both  absent,  and 


present.  Christ  is  "  verily  and  indeed"  received 
in  the  communion;  although  the  communion  is, 
"  verily  and  indeed,"  nothing  but  bread  and 
wine!  It  teaches  that  Christ  is  God,  according 
to  the  Episcopalians  ;  it  teaches  that  Christ  is 
not  God,  according  to  the  Socinians.  It  teaches 
that  there  are  a  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
according  to  the  Baptists ;  it  teaches  that  there  is 
no  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  according 
to  the  Universalists.  It  teaches  that  the  father 
alone  is  God,  according  to  the  Unitarians;  it 
teaches  that  the  father  is  not  God,  according  to 
the  Swedenborgians  ;  that  the  Son  alone,  Christ, 
is  God.  All  this  "the  religion  of  the  Reforma- 
tion" teaches,-  and  you  have  unwittingly  pledged 
yourself  to  the  public,  to  prove  that  "the  religion 
of  the  Reformation,"  is  "the  Protestant  religion," 
and  that  "  the  Protestant  religion"  is  "  the  reli- 
gion of  Christ."  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  will  you  not 
find  it  rather  difficult  to  prove  that  "the  religion 
of  Christ,"  teaches  all  this1? 

It  is  mere  sophistry,  to  assert  that  the  Protes- 
tant religion  "is  as  old  as  the  Bible."  _  The 
Turk  may  say,  wita  equal  propriety,  that  his  reli- 
gion is  as  old  as  God  himself.  But  the  main 
question  is,  did  the  Protestant  religion  exist  be- 
fore Luther  1  If  yov  say  it  did,  then  please  to 
inform  us  of  the  time  when,  of  the  village,  where  ,■ 
and  the  name  of  at  least  one  individual,  by  luhom 
it  was  professed.  This  is  the  touchstone  of  truth, 
which  will  test  your  assertion.  I  bespeak  the 
attention  of  our  readers  to  the  answer  which  you 
will  give  to  this  question.  In  the  meantime  I 
venture  to  predict  that  you  will  evade  it;  but  let 
us  not  anticipate. 

Again,  it  is  well  known,  that  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  Christ  inculcates  subordination  to  au- 
thority. This  doctrine  is  eloquently  put  forth 
by  Presbyterians  themselves,  whenever  they 
wish  to  tame  a  disorderly  brother  in  their  own 
communion.  And  whenever  he  refuses  submission, 
this  authority  strips  him  of  all  the  ministerial  and 
pastoral  power  with  which  it  had  invested  him. 
Thus  it  is  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Irvine  of  London,  at 
this  moment;  because  forsooth,  like  a  consistent 
Protestant,  he  wished  to  take  his  religion  from 
"the  Bible  alone."  Thus  Luther  had  received  his 
mission  and  ordination  from  the  Catholic  church, 
on  the  understanding  that  he  should  exercise  his 
pastorship  in  communion  with  the  church,  and  ac- 
cording to  her  doctrines.  If  the  pastors  of  the  Ca- 
tholic^ church  then,  were  not  true  pastors,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  Christian  ministry  was  extinct. 
Are  you  prepared  for  this  alternative  ]  But  if  they 
were  the  true  and  legitimate  pastors,  then  Luther 
in  the  first  instance  presented  himself  as  a  rebel 
against  the  injunction  of  Christ,  and  a  disturber 
of  that  spiritual  order,  which  Christ  had  establish- 
ed. He  trampled  on  the  vows  of  his  ordination — 
he  violated  the  solemnity  of  his  promise— he  be- 
came an  apostate  and  a  traitor.  If  Luther's 
case  were  true  of  a  Presbyterian  parson,  instead 
of  a  Catholic  monk,  how  well  the  General  As- 
sembly, "  that  highest  judicatory  of  the  church, 
would  know  how  to  pass  a  just  decision  upon  it. 
But  Luther  was,  at  the  period  of  his  revolt,  lik' 


186 


Irvine,  slript  of  all  the  spiritual  authority  he  had 
received  from  the  Catholic  church.  Now  will 
you  please  to  tell  us,  from  what  source,  he  derived 
those  spiritual  powers,  by  virtue  of  which  he  under- 
took to  reform  the  church,  which  had  excommunica- 
ted him  ?  How  came  he  to  arrogate  to  himself, 
the  title  of  "the  Ecclesiastes  of  Wittemburgl" 
Whence  did  he  derive  his  new  authority  after  his 
excommunication  1  Was  it  from  the  Landgrave 
of  Hesse,  to  whom  he  granted  the  privilege  of 
having  two  wives  at  once,  whereas  he  himself  was 
satisfied  with  only  one  1  Was  it  from  Melanc- 
thon,  the  Professor  of  Greek  ?  Or  from  the  popu- 
lace, whom  his  gross  invective,  and  fiery  decla- 
mation roused  into  madness  and  fury  against  the 
whole  church!  In  a  word  from  whom  did  he  re- 
ceive his  authority  1  And  if  he  received  no  au- 
thority, by  what  right  did  he  put  forth  his  sacri- 
legious hand,  to  stay  the  ark  of  the  living  God, 
with  which  Jesus  Christ  promised,  himself,  to 
abide,  "all  days  even  to  the  end  of  time?" 
Whence  did  he  receive  his  new  authority  ?  From 
a  new  Revelation?  So,  indeed,  he  asserts.  But, 
at  the  same  time,  he  informs  as  that  the  angel  of 
this  Revelation  was  no  other  than  the  devil  him- 
self, with  whom  he  frequently  disputed,  and 
whom  he  describes  as  a  firs;-rate  logician  and  an 
elegant  latin  scholar.  But  the  question  still  re- 
turns, from  whom  did  Luther  derive  his  authori- 
ty! He  had  been  unfrocked  by  the  Catholic 
church,  from  whom,  I  repeat,  did  he  derive  the 
new  garment  of  authority  1  Will  you  have  the 
goodness,  Rev.  Sir,  to  answer  this  question. 
When  Moses  revealed  the  Jewish  religion,  he 
showed  his  authority.  When  Christ  revealed  the 
Christian  religion  he  showed  his  authority.  But 
when  Luther  revealed  the  Protestant  religion  he 
showed  no  authority  ,■  judging  probably  with  Mo- 
hamet; that  the  world  was  no  longer  worthy 
of  miracles.  The  ways  of  God  Rev.  Sir,  and  the 
conduct  of  men  are  almost  equally  mysterious. 
The  people  were  incredulous  both  in  reference  to 
Moses  and  to  Christ,  with  all  their  miraculous 
proof  of  divine  authority  ;  and  they  hearkened  to 
Luther  and  his  reforming  followers,  without  re- 
quiring that  even  a  particle  of  primitive  or  subse- 
quent authority  should  be  exhibited  !  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  to  be  saved  by  faith  alone,  was  a  re- 
formation of  religion,  well  calculated  to  make  con- 
verts. The  soul  could  rise  to  heaven,  much  more 
rapidly,  when  borne  on  the  wings  of  faith  alone, 
than  when  its  flight,  (as  before  the  Reformation,) 
was  wont  to  be  retarded  by  the  superstition  of 
good  works.  But  the  question  is,  whence  did  Luther 
derive  his  authority  !  Until  you  are  pleased,  Rev. 
Sir,  to  answer  this  all  important  interrogatory,  I 
feel  warranted  in  maintaining,  that  Luther,  and 
Calvin  and  their  associates,  during  that  epoch  of  ec- 
clesiastical anarchy,  and  religious  phrenzy,  which 
has  been  mantled  into  a  decent  appearance  at 
least  by  the  word  "  Reformation,"  had  not  a  par- 
ticle of  authority  from  either  God  or  men.  They 
were  mere  laymen  in  this  respect; ■  and  iheir  suc- 
cessors in  the  ministry,  are  not,  and  cannot  be 
substantially  any  thing  more.  Still  I  am  not 
bigotted  in  this;    I    will    give  it    up,    if   you 


can  show  that  Luther,  or  Calvin,  or  Socinus,  or 
any  of  the  others,  received  any  subsequent  au- 
thority, to  supply  the  absence  of  that  which  they 
forfeited  in  their  excommunication  from  the  Ca- 
tholic church.  The  proof  of  this  authority  is  all  I 
require. 

But  even  then,  how  will  you  account  for  their 
denouncing  each  other  as  corrupters  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christ?  Their  doctrines,  if  they  told  the  truth, 
were  all  "  exclusively  derived  from  and  consist- 
ent with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice;"  and  this,  according  to  your  definition, 
proves  them  to  have  been  the  doctrines  of  Christ. 
Then,  why  did  they  denounce  each  other  1  Why 
did  each  deny  the  doctrines  of  the  other,  as  the 
doctrines,  not  of  Christ,  but  of  the  devil  ? 

Nor  is  even  this  all.  How  did  they  de- 
rive those  doctrines  1  It  certainly,  was  not  by 
the  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  which  for  certain 
causes,  known  to  themselves,  they  had  renounced. 
Neither  was  it  by  the  Protestant  rule  faith  ,•  for 
this,  you  yourself,  Rev.  Sir,  have  recently  told 
us,  "  is  the  word  of  God,  contained  in  the  Bible ;" 
of  which,  private  interpretation,  you  also  asure 
us,  constitutes  "  the  abuses  alone."  Now,  the 
religion  of  the  Reformation  was  derived  from  the 
Bible  or  it  was  not.  If  it  was  not ;  then  accord- 
ing to  Protestants  it  must  be  false.  But  if  it 
was,  then  according  to  your  own  showing,  you  are 
indebted  for  your  religion  to  "  the  abuse  of  the 
Bible.''''  And  is  it  this  monstrous  offspring  of 
"  abuse,''''  which  you  say  is  the  religion  of  Christ  1 
Your  own  words,  Rev.  Sir,  contend  against  you, 
and  hem  you  in  a  difficulty,  from  which  you  cannot 
escape,  until  you  deny  or  disown  them. 

Again,  touching  what  are  called  "  orthodox" 
tenets  among  Protestants,  I  have  to  observe  that 
they  are  all  found  in  the  Catholic  Church.  These 
doctrines  always  existed  in  the  Church  and 
the  Reformers  in  going  out  from  the  Church  car- 
ried them  forth,  although  on  subsequent  examina- 
tion, as  it  appears,  many  of  them  cannot  be  disco- 
vered in  the  Bible,  and  they  have  consequently 
been  protested  against,  as  the  remnants  of  Catholic 
superstition.  The  doctrine„of  the  Trinity,  of  the 
Incarnation  and  Divinity  of  the  Son  of  God ;  the 
doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  and  the  Atonement 
through  the  death  of  Christ ;  these  were,  and  are 
the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church.  But  the 
denial  and  rejection  of  these  dogmas  was  "  the 
religion  of  the  reformation.''''  It  is  the  Protestant 
religion  Avhich  has  discarded  them,  and  you  must 
vindicate  the  rejection  of  them,  in  order  to  prove 
that  "  thtProtestant  religion'''  is  "  the  religion  of 
Christ:'1 

You  perceive,  Rev.  Sir,  that  I  allow  you  in  this 
argument  all  the  advantages  you  can  desire  ;  the 
whole  benefit  of  the  Protestant  hypothesis,  viz. 
that  Christ  was  unfaithful  to  his  promises,  and  al- 
lowed the  church  to  fall  into  the  errors  against 
which  the  children  of  the  Reformation  have  protest- 
ed. This  will  save  you  the  trouble  of  proving  any 
thing  against  the  church,  by  allowing  you  to  take 
the  conclusion,  for  granted.  And  now  to  simplify 
the  matter,  let  me  put  the  arguments  of  this  let- 


187 


ter,  in  the  form  of  a  few  questions  bearing  direct- 
ly on  the  subject. 

1st  Question.  Did  there  ever  exist  a  society 
of  Christians  (previous  to  the  Reformation,)  agree- 
ing In  doctrines  with  any  sect  of  Protestants  ?  In 
other  words,  were  there  Lutherans  before  Luther  1 
Socinians,  before  Socinus?  Calvinists,  before 
Calvin  ]  or  Episcopalians  (in  the  Protestant 
sense)  before  Henry  VIII.'?     Yes,  or  no. 

2d  Question.  Taking  the  Reformers  as  they 
have  been  described  by  themselves,  is  it  clear  that 
they  were  the  men,  whom  God  would  have  se- 
lected to  purify  his  church  1     Yes  or  no. 

3d  Question.  Does  the  "  religion  of  Christ" 
teach  the  doctrines  of  Protestantism,  from  the 
highest  point  of  Episcopalianism,  down  the  des- 
cending scale  to  the  farthest  verge  of  Unitarian- 
ism  1 — if  not,  the  Protestant  religion,  is  not  the 
religion  of  Christ.     Yes,  or  no. 

4th  Question.  Had  Luther,  Calvin,  Socinus 
and  their  associates  in  reforming  the  church,  and 
re-establishing  the  supposed  religion  of  Christ, 
any  lawful  ministerial  authority — derived  in  any 
regular  way  from  either  God,  or  men  ?     Yes,  or  no. 

5th  Question.  If  they  had  not,  was  it  in  their 
power  to  impart  any  ministerial  authority  to 
their  successors — the  present  clergy  (so  called) 
of  the  Protestant  religion  1     Yes,  or  no. 

Now,  Rev.  Sir,  if  you  believe  the  Protestant 
religion  to  be  the  religion  of  Christ,  you  will  give 
me  a  plain,  categorical  answer  to  these  Jive  questions. 
Come  up  to  them  boldly; — answer  them  candidly, 
"  Yes,  or  no;"  and  then  support  your  answer  by 
such  authority,  evidence,  and  argument  as  truth 
can  always  command.  In  supporting  whatever 
answer  you  may  give  successively  to  each  of 
them,  you  will  have  opportunity  of  reviewing  all 
the  preceding  arguments  and  authorities  of  this 
letter.  What  I  have  said  of  the  Reformers,  I 
have  said  on  their  own  proper  testimony,  and  I 


premise  this  observation,  least  you  should  charge 
me  with  a  wish  to  calumniate  them.  I  have  no 
such  a  wish  towards  any  man,  living  or  dead. 

The  closing  words  of  your  last  are  these  :  "  I 
hepe  in  your  next  to  see  manly  arguments  in  a 
Christian  spirit,  and  a  cessation  of  that  low  and 
vulgar  warfare  which  must  speedily  weary  the 
patient  and  kind  readers  of  our  letters."  The  ad- 
vice, Rev.  Sir,  is  a  good  one ;  but  whether  the 
rebuke  was  merited  by  myself,  or  expected  from 
you,  I  shall  not  presume  to  say.  I  have  tried  in 
this  letter  to  furnish  you  with  solid  and  substantial 
"arguments;"  and  to  show  you  that  I  am  not 
disposed  to  be  "unchristian,"  "low"  or  "vul- 
gar," I  shall  conclude  this  letter  by  a  quotation 
which  breathes  the  soul  of  Christian  charity,  and 
which  you  will  not  prize  the  less,  because  it  is 
the  chastened  and  beautiful  production  of  a  fe- 
male pen.  It  is  taken  from  the  letter  of  Miss 
Pitt,  (relative  of  the  English  minister,)  upon 
her  conversion  to  Catholicity.  "  As  to  the  Pro- 
testants, who  may  obtain  information  of  it,  I  do 
not  consider  myself  calculated  to  instruct  them, 
much  less  to  convert  them  ;  but  I  conjure  them, 
as  my  brethren,  whose  salvation  is  most  dear  to 
me,  to  follow  one  piece  of  advice ;  which  is,  not 
to  reject,  without  the  most  serious  examination, 
the  doubts  which  must  be  originated  in  their 
minds,  if  they  think  deliberately  upon  it;  by  the 
novelty  of  their  belief,  and  its  variations  since  the 
Reformation,  compared  with  the  antiquity  and 
unity  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  ;  for  the  true  faith 
must  be  one ;  and  must  necessarily  be  traced  to 
the  Apostles  and  to  Jesus  Christ.  May  it  please 
God  to  enlighten  them,  as  he  has  deigned  to  en- 
lighten me,  in  order  to  draw  me  from  the  errors 
in  which  my  birthand  education  had  unfortunate- 
ly engaged  me." 

Yours,  &c. 

John  Hughes, 


CONTROVERSY N°.  24. 


Is  the  Protectant  Religion  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  July  llth,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — Whatever,  in  your  fond  fancy ^or  more  hon- 
est fears,  has  been  gained  or  lost,  in  the  present 
controversy,  one  thing  is  certain,  that  the  Bible  does 
not  teach  the  religion  of  Borne.  With  a  redundant 
frequency  and  zeal  you  have  told  us  that  the  Bi- 
ble may  be  made  to  teach  Unitarianism,  while  we 
cannot, prove  the  Trinity  from  it;  that  Universal- 
ism,  and  Swedenborgianism,  and  in  fact,  any  and 
every  system  may  be  supported  by  the  Bible. 
In  order  to  teach  Popery  however,  you  own  that 
you  are  compelled  to  resort  to  authoritative  inter- 
pretation, which  shall  require  all  to  think  alike, 
right  or  wrong.  This  is  Deism;  barefaced  De- 
ism. It  abandons  the  Bible,  as  not  being  a  suffi- 
cient and  infallible  revelation  of  divine  truth; 
and  it  proceeds  upon  the  plan  of  forcing  a  mean- 
ing to  an  unmeaning  book,  and  then  of  enforcing 
that  meaning  on  an  unthinking  multitude.  If 
the  Bible  however  in  the  hands  of  men,  teaches 
any  thing  but  your  system,  why  then  your  cause  is 
given  up  by  you.  Well  did  Eckius  tell  the  Elec- 
tor of  Bavaria  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman 
church  could  be  proved  from  the  Fathers,  but  not 
from  the  Bible !  This  was  honest  and  true. 
Protestants  on  the  other  hand  hold  that  the  Bible 
has  a  fixed  meaning;  that  no  authority  can  alter  that 
meaning ;  that  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  authority  can 
give  it  a  sense,  which,  otherwise  it  has  not;  .and 
that  it  is  an  insult  to  its  author,  to  say  that  he  has 
so  revealed  himself,  and  his  will,  that  his  word 
may  mean  any  thing,  and  every  thing,  unless  in- 
terpreted by  the  church  of  Rome.  As  I  have  often 
told  you,  the  Bible  is  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith  ; 
and  honest,  common-sense  interpretation  the  way 
to  ascertain  the  true  sense  of  that  rule.  If  men 
misinterpret  it,  as  you  do,  and  as  many  calling 
themselves  Protestants  do,  this  is  the  abuse  of  the 
rule,  and  of  reason  ;  it  is  not  the  rule,  or  the  de- 
fect of  the  rule;  but  of  those  who  abuse  the  rule. 
This  is  the  definition  given,  and  advocated  by  me 
from  the  first;  and  having  failed  to  defend  your 
rule,  or  disprove  in  the  least  degree  the  divine 
character  of  the  true  rule,  you  finally  charge  the 
defects  of  your  arguments,  on  alleged  changes  in 
my  definition.  By  so  doing  you  virtually  aban- 
don your  previous  positions  ;  and  to  this  I  trace 
your  sudden  consent  to  pass  from  the  question 
without  ev>er  bringing  your  rule  of  faith  to  view  ; 
though  we  were  discussing  the  general  subject 
for  five  months.  I  hope  therefore  the  intelligent 
reader  will  observe  that  as  Mr.  Hughes  has  not 
yet  either  produced,  or  defended  when  I  have  pro- 
duced, several  of  the  leading  features  of  his  rule 


j  of  faith,  (as  the  Apochryphal  books,  the  unani- 
I  mous  consent  of  the  fathers,  and  unwritten  tradi- 
|  tions.)  he  is  hardly  a  fit  person  to  define  our  rule. 
And  I  am  perfectly  Willing  to  leave  his  suppres- 
sion of  his  own  rule,  and  his  charge  of  change  on 
mine,  as  proof  and  even  confession,  that  his  can- 
not be  defended,  nor  ours  weakened  by  him. 

The  expressive  silence  which  you  observe  in 
your  last  letter  tells  but  too  plainly  both  your  po- 
licy and  your  straits.  On  the  first  question,  viz: 
the  rule  of  faith,  you  pursued  the  same  course. 
In  your  second  letter  you  said,  "  at  a  proper  time, 
I  shall  defend  the  Catholic  rule  with  positive  ar- 
guments;" and  again,  in  the  same  letter,  "when 
the  time  shall  come,  however,  I  bind  myself  to 
prove  that  several  of  the  former  (my  authorities) 
are  spurious,  and  several  of  the  latter  (my  propo- 
sitions) are  false."  But  let  any  reader  refer  to 
the  long  list  of  these  propositions,  spread  out  at 
large  in  my  first  letter,  and  see  whether  this 
pledge  has  ever  been  redeemed.  You  flew  at  the 
authorities,  and  cried  out  for  references;  but  after 
all  your  struggles  the  authorities  still  stand.  As 
to  the  propositions,  the  2d,  3d,  4th,  5th,  6th,  7th, 
9th  and  10th,  stand  untouched;  and  the  pro- 
mised "  strong  arguments,"  linger  like  Sisera, 
"  when  his  mother  looked  out  at  a  window,  and 
cried  through  the  lattice,  why  is  his  chariot  so 
long  in  coming!"  (Judges  v.  28.) 

And  now  on  the  2d  great  question,  your  plan  is 
still  the  same.  For  the  chief  part  of  three  letters, 
I  have  advanced  upon  this  question — your  reply 
is  silence,  as  to  all  that  I  have  said,  with  the  good 
old  promise,  to  save  us  from  despair,  viz.  "  That 
question  being  disposed  of,  I  shall  allow  you  to 
take  up  any  doctrine  of  the  church  and  I  shall 
hold  myself  prepared  to  refute  all  the  arguments 
you  shall  bring  against  it!"  And  so  after  going 
over  all  the  ground  of  Protestantism  in  perfect  si- 
lence, and  leaving  the  Papacy  reposing  in  securi- 
ty and  state,  some  three  or  four  years  hence,  (not 
sooner,  if  you  spend  the  proportion  of  time  on 
each  topic  as  on  the  rule  of  faith)  you  will  answer 
my  arguments  against  "  the  doctrine  of  the  ehurcK'!n 
But  sir,  the  country  has  never  fully  seen  the  mys- 
teries of  your  system;  and  are  curious  to  behold 
them;  and  I  design  with  the  help  of  God  now 
to  do  my  part  towards  bringing  them  to  view. 
As  you  say,  so  it  is  admitted,  that  "  /  am  to  de- 
fend the  Protestani 'faith .•"  and  as  this  is  the  true 
and  natural,  as  well  as  just  order  of  discussion,  I 
will  proceed,  as. I  have  begun,  promising,  like 
yourself,  but  in  much  shorter  time,  to  meet  all 
your  objections  and  attacks.  If  this  line  of  ar- 
gument displeases,  you  have  the  option  of  a  con- 


190 


nected  and  more  enlarged  discussion  of  the  whole 
subject,  or  of  a  public  oral  discussion  by  which  in 
a  few  successive  days  the  entire  ground  may  be 
traversed.  Each  has  often  been  tendered  to  you. 
The  latter  you  have  prudently  declined.  The 
former  I  am  now  preparing  for  the  press  as  op- 
portunity is  allowed  me. 
To  proceed,  then.    In  my  last  three  letters  I  have 

J)roved,  on  Roman  Catholic  authority,  viz.  of  pre- 
ates,  popes,  and  councils,  that  a  reformation  in 
morals,  worship  and  doctrine  was  necessary  be- 
fore, and  at  the  time  of  Luther's  appearing. 

I  have  also  showed  (upon  testimony  which  you 
have  wisely  left  untouched)  that  your  canon  of 
Scripture  corrupted  the  religion  Christ  at  the 
fountain  head :  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Tope's  su- 
premacy is  a  wicked,  and  anti-christian  usurpa- 
tion, oppressing  men,  and  rebelling  against  God, 
by  a  lawless  monarchy ;  and  that  the  doctrine  of 
Indulgences,  against  the>  express  testimony  of 
the  Bible,  gives  to  Popes  'and  others  the  power  to 
pardon  sin,  adds  creature-merits  to  the  infinite 
merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  assumes  the  impious 
right  to  sell  for  money  the  gifts,  and  grace  of 
God. 

I  also  proved  that  the  canon  of  Scripture  used 
by  the  church  of  Rome,  the  Pope's  supremacy, 
Transubstantiation,  and  depriving  the  Laity  of 
the  cup  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  were  innovations 
unknown  for  ages  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
Of  course  it  follows  that  the  church  guilty  of 
these  anti-christian  innovations,  has  so  far,  cor- 
rupted the  religion  of  Christ. 

I.  In  prosecution  of  the  plan  thus  begun,  I  pass 
to  expose  the  doctrine  of  TRANSUBSTANTiATroN. 
In  my  last  leter  I  proved  that  it  was  not  promoted 
into  a  doctrine,  as  your  Scotus  affirms,  until 
A.  D.  1215  !  Surely  then  it  is  not  an  ancient  doc- 
trine ;  yet  is  it  taught  in  your  church  "  that  novel- 
ties are  subversive  of  Christianity,  and  that  those 
who  teach  them  must  fall  under  the  divine  ana- 
thema, and  are  of  the  school  of  Satan  !" 

The   doctrine    according    to    the    Council    of 
Trent  is  this  :   "  That  by  the  consecration  of  the 
bread  and  wine  there  is  effected  a  conversion  of 
the  whole  substance,  the  bread  into  the  substance 
of  the  body  of  Christ  our  Lord,  and  of  the  whole 
substance  of  the  wine  into  the  substance  of  his 
blood.     "Which  conversion  is  fitly  and  properly 
termed  by  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  Transub- 
stantiation." Sess.  13.  C.  3.  and  Can.  1.  "If  any 
one  shall  deny  that  in  the  most  holy  sacrament 
of  the  eucharist,  there  are  contained,  truly,  really 
and  substantially,  the  body  and  blood,  together 
with    the   soul   and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  or  say  that  he  is  in  it  only  as  a  sign  or 
figure,  or  by  his  influence,  let  him  be  accursed." 
The  following  shocking  and  humiliating  ex- 
tract from  the  Missal,  which  is  the  authorized 
book  of  the  church  for  the  celebration  of  masses, 
will  show  how  the  consecrated  bread  is  regarded. 
It  is  one  of  many  such  things.     "  If  the  priest 
vomit  the  Eucharist  and  the  species  appear  en- 
tire, they  must  reverendly  be  swallowed  again, 
unless  nausia  prevent  it ;  if  so  let  the  consecrated 
species  be  cautiously  separated,  and  put  in  some 


holy  place,  until  they  be  corrupted,  and  then  let 
them  be  cast  into  holy  ground  ;  hut  if  the  spe- 
cies do  not  appear,  the  vomit  must  be  burned, 
and  the  ashes  thrown  into  holy  ground."  (Mis- 
sale  De.  Def.  in  eel.  Mass.  occ.) 

Now  can  any  one  in  his  senses  need  proof  that  this 
doctrine  and  this  illustration,  are  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God  ?     You  say  it  is  deduced  from  the 
institution  of   the  supper,  where  our  Lord  said 
of  the  bread,  "  this  is  by  body.''''     But  so  it  is  said 
"  that  rock  was  Christ.''''  1  Cor.  x.  4.  Is  this  literal  1 
John  x.  9.  and  xv.  1.  Christ  says  "/  am  the  door,"  I 
am  the  true  vine."  Heb.   xii.   29.  "Our  God    is 
a  consuming  fire."     Num.  xiv.  9'.  The  spies  said 
on  their  return  to  the  camp  "the  people  of  the  land 
are  bread  for   us."     Is  this    all    figure  1    or   all 
fact  ]    for   they    stand   or   fall   together.     Isaiah 
xl.  6.  says  "  all  flesh  is  grass."     Peter  explains 
this,  1  Peter  i.  24.  "  All  flesh  is  as  grass.     In- 
deed I  remember  that  you  said  in  letter  No.   7, 
"  Just  lend  me  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith  for  a 
few  minutes,  and  I  will  prove  from  Scripture  that 
it  is  right  to  call  the  Pope  God.     You  arc  gods. 
I  have  appointed  thee  god  of  Pharaoh."  P.  71.  6. 
Exodus  vii.  1."     Such  was  your  language  when 
figure  was  convenient.     To  see  the  unscriptural 
character  of  this  doctrine,  you  have  only  to  look 
at   1  Cor.  x.  16.  and  also  xi.  26 — 29.  where  the 
element  of  bread  is  called  bread  after  consecra- 
tion, "As  oft  as  ye  eat  this  bread,"  &c. ;  and 
where  by  another  figure  the  cup  is  put  for  the 
vune,  "as  oft  as  ye  drink  this  cup  ;"  and  according 
to  your  doctrine  the  wine  which  was  first  made  the 
real  blood  of  Christ,  is   then  transmuted  into   a 
real  cup  ,-  and  then  this  cup  is  changed  into  the 
New  Testament !     We  are  referred  for  proof  of 
Transubstantiation  to  John  vi.  53,    "  Except  ye 
eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his 
blood,  you  have  no  life  in  you."     But  it  is  most 
clear  that  this  cannot  mean    transubstantiation. 
1.  For  in  verses  32 — 3.  he  tells  us  this  bread  came 
down  from  heaven;  but  his  natural  body  was  born 
on  earth.     2.  Whoever  eats  this  bread  has  eternal 
life.     But   do   all  that  take  the  eucharist,  have 
eternal   life]     3.  Whoever  eats    not    this  living 
bread  (verse  53,)  is  forever  lost — but  surely  some 
are   saved  who  never  received    the   sacrament. 
4.  As   you  deprive  the   people  of  the  cup,    so 
if  this   means   the   Eucharist   and   Transubstan- 
tiation, you  destroy  all  their  souls,  for  it  says 
"  except  ye   drink    his   blood    ye    have   no   life 
in  you."     5.  To  drink   the  blood  of  Christ  at 
that  time  or  at  the  institution  was  impossible — 
for  it  was  not  then  shed ;  and  if  it  be  as  you  say, 
then  Christ  drank  his  own  blood,  and  eat  his  own 
flesh  !     6.  In  this  same  chapter  Christ  tells  us 
that  it  is  a  figure,  and  has  a  spiritual  meaning  ;  v. 
63.  "  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  they  are 
spirit,  and  they  are  life." 

I  have  already  produced  the  admission  of  Bel- 
larmine  and  the  testimony  of  Scotus  (see  last 
letter)  against  this  doctrine.  Cardinal  Cajetan 
(Notes  on  Aquinas  p.  3.  q.  75.  Art.  1,  &c.)  says, 
"  The  other  point  which  the  gospel  has  not  ex- 
pounded expressly,  that  is  the  change  of  the 
bread  into  the  body  of  Christ,  we  have  received  from 


191 


the  church.^  Here  i9  the  church  against  the  gos- 
pel!  Again:  "There  appears  nothing  in  the 
gospel  to  compel  any  man  to  understand  these 
words,  this  is -my  body,  in  a  proper  sense.  Nay, 
that  presence  (of  Christ)  which  the  church  hold- 
eth,  cannot  be  proved,  unless  the  declaration  of  the 
church  be  added."  Bishop  Fisher,  also  Vas- 
quez,  Alphonsus  de  Castro,  Erasmus,  Durand, 
Melchior  Cane,  &c.  &c.  all  of  your  church, 
not  to  mention  others,  bear  the  same  testimony. 
By  order  of  Pope  Pius  V.  the  above  conces- 
sion of  Cajetan  was  expunged  from  the  Roman 
edition  of  his  works  !  Such  is  the  testimony  of 
Scripture  and  your  own  writers,  against  a  doc- 
trine which  we  are  cursed  by  your  church  for  re- 
jecting. 

But  this  doctrine  invades  the  testimony  of  the 
senses.  If  it  be  true,  that  the  bread  by  consecra- 
tion becomes  "  substantially  the  body  and  blood 
together  with  the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  and  yet  appears  bread,  and  retains 
all  the  qualities  of  bread,  then  am  I  ever  to  be- 
lieve my  senses  again  ?  I  see,  and  handle,  and 
eat  the  bread — a  little  piece  of  wafer,  and  yet  you 
tell  us  that  a  few  words  by  a  priest  have  made  it 
the  body,  soul,  and  divinity  of  Christ?  If  the  pro- 
perties of  one  substance  may  become  those  of 
another,  and  utterly  different  substance,  and  yet 
those  properties  remain,  then  I  can  be  certain  of 
no  substance ;  nor  of  any  thing  I  see,  feel,  taste 
or  touch?  If  transubstantiation  is  true,  Chris- 
tianity may  be  false — for  the  evidence  of  miracle 
appeals  to,  and  rests  on  the  testimony  of  the  senses. 
As  for  example,  after  Christ  rose  from  the  dead, 
he  said  to  his  disciples,  (Luke  xxiv.  39,)  "  Han- 
dle me  and  see,  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and 
bones,  as  ye  see  me  have."  Now  this  was'ap- 
pealing  to  their  senses,  that  he  was  not  a  disem- 
bodied "  spirit,"  (as  they  feared)  but  had  a  real 
body.  Here  the  proof  rested  on  the  testimony  of 
the  senses.  But  the  senses  tell  us  the  bread  is 
bread,  blessed,  or  not  blessed.  But  if  it  be  the 
real  body  of  Christ,  then  they  deceive  us  in  this 
important  case,  and  they  may  have  deceived  the 
disciples  in  the  Lord's  resurrection  :  and  then  all 
miracles  are  vain,  and  Christianity  which  rests  on 
them  is  vain ;  and  David  Hume  is  right  in  re- 
solving all  religion  and  all  nature  into  illusions 
and  ideas.  And  is  there  any  thing  more  abhor- 
rent than  to  suppose  that  a  priest  can  make  his 
God,  by  uttering  a  few  words  ?  And  when  he 
has  thus  made  a  wafer  of  senseless  matter  into 
the  soul  and  divinity,  as  well  as  body  of  Jesus 
Christ,  what  becomes  of  them  after  the  wafer  is 
eaten  ?  Does  the  wafer  become  our  creator,  pos- 
sessed of  the  attributes,  and  capable  of  the  acts 
of  God  ?  And  does  that  wafer  ever  cease  to  be 
God  after  once  becoming  so?  No  doctrine  of 
your  church  is  more  strenuously  and  exclusively 
pressed ;  none  with  less  evidence,  or  greater  ab- 
surdity ;  and  nothing  has  more  contributed  to  de- 
grade the  Christian  religion,  and  make  men  inn- 
dels.  There  was  more  of  wisdom  than  of  Chris- 
tian honesty  in  the  confession  of  Mr.  Cressy 
when  he  said,  "I  have  not  learned  to  answer 
such  arguments,  but  to  despise  them."     Cicero 


says,  "When  we  call  the  fruits  of  the  earth  Ceres, 
and  the  wine  Bacchus,  we  use  but  the  common 
language — but  do  you  think  any  man  so  mad  &9 
to  believe  that  which  he  eats  to  be  God?"  (De 
nat.  Deornum  b.  3.)  Yet  in  that  very  Rome, 
where  a  wise  heathen  thus  spoke,  the  infallible 
head  of  the  church  does  this  very  thing.  Ama- 
zing indeed ! 

Averroes,  an  Arabian  philosopher,  who  lived 
after  this  doctrine  was  invented,  says:  "I  have 
travelled  over  the  world,  and  have  found  divers 
sects — but  so  sottish  a  sect,  or  law,  I  never  found 
as  is  the  sect  of  the  Christians;  because  with 
their  own  teeth  they  devour  the  God  whom  they 
worship." 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  and  of  your 
own  writers,  of  reason,  and  of  the  senses,  against 
this  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Is  it 
not  then  a  glaring  novelty  ?  Is  it  not  most  cor- 
rupt and  anti-christian  ? 

2.  This  doctrine''  leads  directly  to  another 
equally  novel,  and  corrupt,  (for  errors  come  in  a 
chain,  one  drawing  after  it  another,)  viz:  the  sa- 
crifice of  the  Mass.  In  chap.  I.  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  on  the  institution  of  the  sacrifice  of  Mass, 
we  are  told  that  "  our  Lord,  in  the  last  supper  on 
the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  declared 
himself  to  be  constituted  a  priest  forever  after  the 
order  of  Melchisedek — offered  his  blood  and  body 
to  God  the  Father,  under  the  species  of  bread  and 
wine,  and  by  these  symbols  delivered  the  same  to 
be  received  by  his  Apostles  whom  he  then  ap- 
pointed priests  of  the  New  Testament,  and  com- 
manded them  and  their  successors  in  the  Priest- 
hood to  offer  the  same,  saying,  "  this  do  in  com- 
memoration of  me,"  Luke  xxii.  19.  Chap.  2. 
"  And  since  the  same  Christ  who  once  offered 
himself  by  his  blood,  on  the  altar  of  the  cross,  is 
contained  in  this  divine  sacrifice  which  is  cele- 
brated in  the  Mass  and  offered  without  blood,  the 
holy  Council  teaches  that  this  is  really  propitiato- 
ry, and  made  by  Christ  himself'' 

"  We  therefore  confess  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass  is  one  and  the  same  sacrifice,  with  that  of 
the  cross  ;  the  victim  is  one  and  the  same  Christ 

Jesus and  the  oblation  of    the  cross  is 

daily  renewed  in  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice. 

The  priest  also  is  the  same  Christ  our  Lord." 
(Catechism,  Coun.  Trent,  on  the  Eucharist.) 

Such  are  the  infallible  decrees,  &c,  on  this 
awful  profanation,  for  I  cannot  truly  caJl  it  by  a  bet- 
ter name.  The  substance  is  this,  that  every  priest 
has  power  to  turn  bread  and  wine,  by  uttering  a 
few  words,  into  the  real  Lord  Jesus,  the  Son  of  Ma- 
ry, and  the  Son  of  God,  who  is  now  enthroned  in 
Heaven  ;  and  that  having  thus  made  his  Maker, 
he  offers  him  up  to  God  as  an  atoning  sacrifice 
for  the  living  and  the  dead,  who  are  in  Purga- 
tory ! 

Now  /*  ihis  less  than  crucifying  to  themselves  the 
Son  of  God  afresh,  which  Paul  tells  us,  (Heb.  vi. 
6.)  is  putting  Him  to  an  open  shame?  Is  it  not 
written  (Heb.  ix.  24—28.)  expressly,  "that 
Christ  did  not  offer  himself  often,  as  the  High 
Priest  entereth  into  the  holy  place  every  year, 
with  blood  of  others,  for  then  must  He  often  have 


192 


suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  but 
now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  He  ap- 
peared to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  him- 
self; and  as  it  is  appointed  Unto  men  once  to  die, 
but  after  that  the  judgment,  so  Christ  was  once 
offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many."  "  For  such  a 
high  priest  became  us,  who  is  holy,  harmless, 
undefined,  separate  from  sinners,  and  made  higher 
than  the  heavens;  who  needeth  not  daily,  as 
those  high  priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifice,  first  for 
his  own  sins,  and  then  for  the  people's:  for  this 
he  did  once,  when  he  offered  up  himself."  (Heb. 
vii.  26-27.)  "  And  every  priest  standeth  daily 
ministering,  and  offering  oftentimes  the  same 
sacrifices,  which  can  never  take  away  sins  :  but 
this  man',  after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for 
sins,  for  ever  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God  ; 
from  henceforth  expecting  till  his  enemies  be 
made  his  footstool."  (Hebrews  x.  11 — 13.) 
The  repetition  then  of  the  sacrifice,  if  it  were 
possible,  by  the  priest's  hands,  would  be  anti- 
christian  and  absurd.  Is  not  this  most  ex- 
press; that  daily  sacrifices  were  not  needed  or  de- 
signed; that  this  was  to  be  done  but  once;  and  that 
He  was  to  do  it ,-  not  frail  priests?  And  having 
done  it  once,  He  forever  sat  down  at  God's  right 
hand,  to  die  no  more? 

Again,  (in  Hebrews  chap.  ix.  verse  22,)  it  is 
expressly  said  "without  shedding  of  blood  is  no 
remission."  But  Christ  had  not  shed  his  blood, 
at  the  last  supper;  and  "the  vain  oblation"  of 
the  Mass,  is  called  a  bloodless  sacrifice  ;  yet  in 
the  extracts  given  above,  your  church  says  the 
Mass  is  a  real  propitiatory  sacr'fice.  Query.  Does 
Christ  now  suffer  when  he  is  sacrificed  in  the 
Mass]  It  is  said,  "that  it  is  the  same  Christ, 
who  is  the  victim,  in  the  oblation  of  the  Mass,  as 
in  the  oblation  on  the  cross."  If  he  suffer  not,  he 
is  not  a  victim ;  to  say  he  suffers  now  is  blasphemy. 
Let  any  man  compare  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
especially  the  ten  first  chapters,  with  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  he  will  see  at  every 
step,  the  Gospel  tortured  ;  the  order  of  things 
turned  backward  ;  the  Pope  and  his  priesthood 
caricatured  into  a  Levitical  household  ;  Christ 
degraded  ;  his  death  dishonoured,  his  worship 
polluted,  men  exalted  to  gods,  and  God  reduced 
to  the  creature  of  men's  hands,  and  then  alter- 
nately worshipped,  offered  up,  and  consumed  by 
those  who  made  him. 

One  dreadful  feature  in  this  system  is  the  pro- 
fane power  it  puts  into  the  Priest's  hands. 
The  transubstantiation  depends  on  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  Priest ;  and  if  "  his  intention"  be 
wanting,  then  there  is  no  real  sacrament,  and  the 
poor  people  are  all  deceived,  they  idolatrousiy 
worship  the  bread  and  wine,,  and  the  sacrifice  is 
lost.  But  supposing  thetrue  intention  and  proper 
forms,  the  priest  offers  up  the  Christ  he  has  made, 
"  as  a  true  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  Hvingand 
the  dead."  He  does  all  that  Christ  need  do  for 
the  poor  sinner.  To  him  he  confesses  his  sins, 
from  him  he  receives  absolution,  and  he  offers  up 
the  victim  even  Christ,  and  by  his  sacrificing  act, 
the  pardon  of  the  sinner  is  secured.  Hence  mass- 
es abound.     Hence  preaching,  pastoral  visitation, 


studying  the  Bible,  all  things  are  secondary  to 
the  Mass,  and  to  celebrate  it,  (as  a  certain  distin- 
guished priest  recently  told  an  astonished  friend 
of  mine)  is  the  chief  business  of  the  priest. 

Add  to  this  that  these  masses  are  sold  for  mo- 
ney. I  gave  a  specimen  from  the  churches  in 
Madrid  in  my  last.  "In  the  Laity's  directory," 
1830,  p.  22.  31.  Those  who  contribute  to  the 
erection  of  a  chapel  are' assured  "  that  every  Sun- 
day, prayers  shall  be  offered  up  for  them  publicly, 
and  that  amass  will  be  said  every  year  within  the 
octave  of  saints  for  the  repose  of  their  souls  after 
death  :"  and  "  four  masses  in  each  month  are  re- 
gularly offered  for  the  benefactors  (subscribers 
for  a  particular  fund)  living  and  dead  :"  i.  e. 
Christ  is  sacrificed  thirty-six  times  annually  in 
these  masses,  in  return  for  their  money  !  I  have 
before  me,  at  this  moment  the  form  of  constitution 
of  a  "purgatorial  society"  in  Dublin,  A.  D. 
1815.  The  22d  rule  is  as  follows:  "Every 
person  wishing  to  contribute  to  the  relief  of  the 
suffering  souls  in  purgatory  shall  pay  one  penny 
per  week,  which  shall  be  appropriated  towards  pro- 
curing masses,  to  be  offered  for  the  repose  of  the 
souls  of  the  parents  and  relations  of  the  subscribers 
to  the  institution,  and  all  the  faithful  departed  in 
general." 

The  3d  chap,  of  Dec.  Conn.  Trent  is  headed, 
"  Of  Masses  in  honour  of  the  Saints.''''  That  is,  Christ 
is* offered  up,  in  honour  of  his  sinful  creatures! 
Thus  the  Missal  (the  Roman  Directory  containing 
masses  for  the  various  days  and  occasions,  and 
sanctioned  by  Popes  and  used  every  where)  under 
the  title  of  "  the  feast  of  St.  Peter's  chair  in  which 
he  first  sat  at  Rome,"  has  these  prayers  :  "  May 
the  intercession  of  thy  blessed  Apostle  Peter,  we 
beseech  thee,  0  Lord,  render  the  prayers  and  obla- 
tions of  thy  church  acceptable  to  thee,  that  what 
we  celebrate  (the  masses)  for  his  glory  (pro  illius 
gloria)  may  prevail  for  the  pardon  of  our  sins." 
Again,  "Sanctify,  O  Lord,  the  offerings  of  thy  peo- 
ple by  the  prayers  of  thy  Apostle  Paul,  that  what 
is  accceptable  to  Thee,  because  by  Thee  instituted, 
may  become  still  more  accept  able  by  his  intercession." 
Here  is  the  authorized  Directory  for  your  church 
worship;  and  the  prayer  it  prescribes  is  that  "the 
offeiings  of  the  people,"  that  is,  Christ  sacrificed 
in  the  mass,  offered  up  in  honor  of  Peter,  and  Paul, 
may  be  made  more  acceptable,  by  the  prayers 
of  these  creatures!  Is  this  Christianity?  Is 
it  less  than  blasphemy]  Yet  this  is  authoris- 
ed infallible  Popery.  Is  it  wrong  then  to  protest 
against  it?  Was  not  silence  a  sinful  connivanee, 
protestation  a  public  duty,  reformation  a  univer- 
sal right?  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  coun- 
cil of  Trent,  as  if  conscious  of  its  anti-christian 
character,  does  not  attempt  to  found  this  doctrine 
on  the  word  of  God,  but  rests  it  on  the  authority 
of  the  church  ! 

3.  The  worship  of  the  host  (which  arises  out  of 
the  former  errors)  is  unscriptural,  and  grossly  idol- 
atrous. 

The  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (Session 
13.  Chap.  5.  and  canon  6.  are  to  the  following 
effect,  viz  :  "  There  is  therefore  no  room  to  doubt, 
but  that  the  faithful  of  Christ  should  adore  his 


193 


mo3t  holy  sacrament  with  that  highest  worship 
due  to  the  true  God,  according  to  the  constant 
usage   in   the   Catholic   Church.     Nor   is  it  the 
less^to  be  adored,  that  it  was  instituted  by  Christ 
our  Lord  as  has  been  stated,"  (that  is,  to  be  eaten.) 
Again,  "whoever  shall  affirm,  that  Christ  the  only 
begotten 'Son  of  God,  is  not  to  be  adored  in  the  holy 
eucharist  with  the  external  signs  of  that  worship 
which  is  due  to  God;  and   therefore  that  the  eu- 
charist is  not  to  be  honoured  with  extraordinary 
festive  celebration,  nor  solemnly  carried  about  in 
processions,  according  to  the  laudable  and  uni- 
versal rites  and  customs  of  the  Holy  Church,  nor 
publicly   presented   to  the  people  for  their  ado- 
ration; and  that  those  who  worship  the  same  are 
idolaters;  let  him  be  accursed."     It  is  well  for 
Protestants,  that  this  curse  is  harmless,  for  that  it 
is  idolatry,  the  very  language  of  the  decree  direct- 
ly   evinces.     In    our   own    country   there  is  too 
much  light  to  bear  the  public  elevation,  and  am- 
bulatory'show  of  the  Host.  It  is  confined  to  the  al- 
tars and  ailes  of  the  church.     But  in  Italy,  and  in 
Spain  "this  tremendous  mystery,"  as  some  Roman- 
ist calls  it,  is  often  carried  in  public  processions,  and 
every  man  must  kneel  or  be  knocked  down,  as  the 
Host  moves  by.     In  the  above  quotation  the  au- 
thority and   practice  of  the  church  are  again  (as 
usual)  substituted   for  the  word  of  God,  and  the 
law  of  Christ.     As  to  "usage  of  the  church''''  what 
have  we  to  do  with  that,  when  it  practices  gross 
idolatry  ]     Besides  this  usage  is  of  comparatively 
modern  date.    The  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation 
was  not  made  (as  we  have  said)  an  article  of  faith 
until    the  year    1215 — so    say   >Scotus,   Tonst.al, 
and  others ;  and  of  course  before  that,  the  bread 
was  not  worshipped.     And   in  the  Roman   Canon 
Law  it  is  written  that  Pope  Honorius  III.  in  the 
following  year  directed  that   the  priests,  at.  a  cer- 
tain part  of  the  service,  should  elevate  the  host,  and 
cause  the  people  to  prostrate themselvesand  aflore. 
Soon  afterthis,  he  directed  the  words  "  HicDeum 
cc?ora" — here  adore  God, — to  be  inscribed   on   the 
doors  of  those  places  in  which  the  host  was  re- 
served for  the  sick. 

As  to  other  charges  of  idolatry,  some  denial  or 
explanation  is  entered  up.  But  here  it  is  avowed, 
and  a  curse  levelled  at  those  who  decline  it,  or 
condemn  it.  If  the  bread  be  not  God,  then  it  is 
confessedly  idolatry.  But  the  council  of  Trent 
decreed  (Sess.  7.  can.  11.)  that  the  intention  of  the 
priest  is  necessary  to  a  true,  sacrament,  and  the  Ms- 
sal,  says  "  if  a  priest  should  not  intend  to  consecrate 
but  to  deceive,  there  is  no  sacrament. "  But  it  is  cer- 


er's  intention.''''  (Book  3.  chap.  8.    on   Justifica* 
tion.) 

The  Missal  mentions  no  less  than  ten  heads, 
and  under  those  no  less  than  Jify  particulars,  in 
wh  ch  defects  may  occur.  But  whenever  such 
defect  occurs,  (and  who  can  be  certain  it  does  not 
on  any  given  occasion  ])  the  worship  of  the  bread 
is  confessedly  idolatry?  As  for  Scripture  au- 
thority for  this  worship,  there  is  not  one  loord. 
But  the  church  is  residuary  legatee  of  all  power, 
and  settles  all  questions  at  Rome  now,  as  the 
sword  of  Brennus  did  in  a  former  age.  Vasquez 
(on  1  Cor.  28,)  says  "  the  power  of  the  Apostles 
to  give  commandments,  has  not  been  greater  than 
that  of  the  church  and  the  Popes."  Gabriel  Biel 
(Can.  Mass.)  "  Priests  have  great  power  over 
the  one,  a  d  the  other  body  of  Christ--«-He  who 
made  me  has,  if  I  may  say  it,  given  me  pow- 
er to  create  him;  and  he  that  made  me  is  made  by 
my  means."  And  sec.  4th.  "  Christ  is  incarnate, 
and  made  flesh,  in  the  hands  of  Priests,  as  in  the 

Virgin's  womb Priests  do  create  their  creator 

and  have  power  over  the  body  of  Christ."  I  will 
not,  as  I  might,  multiply  these  shocking  profani- 
ties. But  here  is  the  seat  of  the*  power,  to  make 
the  bread  divine,  and  of  the  authority  to  require 
it  to  be  adored.  And  now  is  it  anti-christian  to 
protest  against  such  abominations  1 

4.  Purgatory  is  a  fiction  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
having  no  foundation  in  the  word  of  God,  and  ruin- 
ous to  the  souls  of  men. 

In  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  Pur- 
gatory (sess.  25,>  it  is  written — "That  there  is  a 
purgatory;  and  that,  the  souls  detained  there  are 
assisted  by  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful,  but  espe- 
cially by  the  acceptable  sacrifice  of  the  mass  ;  this 
holy  council  commands  all  bishops  diligently  to  en- 
deavour that  the  wholesome  doctrine  of  purgatory, 
delivered  to  us  by  venerable  fathers  and  holy 
councils,  be  believed  and  held  by  Christ's  faith- 
ful, and-every  where  taught  and  preached."  The 
creed  also  contains  the  following  article  :  "I  con- 
stantly hold  that  there,  is  a  purgatory,  and  that 
the  souls  detained  therein  are  helped  by  the  suf- 
frages of  the  faithful."  The  catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  also  teaches,  (Part  1st.  ch.  6.) 
"  That  the  souls  of  the  pious,  who  have  departed 
this  life,  not  fully  cleansed,  and  having  somewhat 
yet  to  pay,  make  full  satisfaction  through  the  fire 
of  Purgatory." 

Bellarmine  heads  his  third  general  controversy, 
with  this  extraordinary  title  :  "  Of  the  church 
which  is  in  Purgatory"  ! ! !     In   his   first  book, 


tain  that  in  the  innumerable  millions  of  masses  1st  chapter,  on  the  same  subject  he  says,  "Pur 
said,  priests  often  lack  the  intention.  Then  in  !  gatory  is  a  certain  place  in  which,  as  in  a  prison, 
such  a  case  there  is  gross  idolatry  ;   for  as  it  is    after  this  life,  the 


owned  that  in  such  case  the  bread,  remains  un- 
changed, so  those  who  worship  it  are  idolaters. 
But  who  can  be  certain  of  the  intention  of  a  priest, 
especially  when  so  many  of  them  have  been,  and 
are  among  the  most  abandoned,  and  irreligious  of 
men?  Bellarmine  (if  he  has  not  lost  his  ortho- 
doxy with  you)  tells  us  "no  man  can  be  certain 
with  the  certainty  of  faith  that  he  receives  a  true 
sacrament ;  because  it  depends  on  the  minister's 
intention  to  consecrate  it :  and  none  can  see  anoth- 


this  life,  the  souls  which  have  not  been 
fully  cleansed  on  earth,  are  purified ,•  so  that  thus 
they  may  be  certainly  prepared  for  heaven,  where 
nothing  that  defiles  shall  enter."  Such  is  the 
summary  of  a  doctrine  so  profitable  to  the  priests, 
and  so  ruinous  to  the  people/  Bishop  Fisher  of 
your  church  says;  (In  Confut.  Luth.  Art.  18.) 
"  Many  are  tempted  now  a  days,  not  to  rely  much 
on  Indulgences,-  for  this  consideration,  that  the 
use  of  them  appears  to  be  new  and  very  lately 
known  among  Christians :    To  which  I  answer, 


194 


It  is  not  very  certain  who  wa9  the  first  author  of 
them  ;  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory  was  a  long  time 
unknown,  was  rarely  if  at  all  heard  of  among  the 
ancients,  and  to  this  day  the  Greeks  believe  it  not; 
nor  was  the  belief  of  either  Purgatory,  or  Indul- 
gences, so  necessary  in  the  Primitive  church,  as 
it  is  now,-  so  long  as  men  were  unconcerned 
about  Purgatory,  nobody  inquired  after  Indul- 
gences." The  Greeks,  to  whom  the  above  ex- 
tract refers,  say  in  their  apology  to  the  Council 
of  Basil,  (De  Igne  Purgatorio,)  "we  own  no 
Purgatory-fire  ;  we  have  received  no  such  thing; 
nor  doth  our  Eastern  church  confess  it."  And, 
again:  "For  these  causes,  the  doctrine  pro- 
posed, of  a  Purgatory-fire,  is  to  be  rejected  and 
cast  out  of  the  church,  as  that  which  tends  to 
slacken  the  endeavours  of  the  diligent,  and  which 
hinders  them  from  doing  their  utmost  to  be  purged 
in  this  life,  since  another  Purgatory  is  expected 
after  it."  Otho  Frising,  an  old  Roman  Catholic 
Bishop  and  historian,  cotemporary  with  St.  Ber- 
nard, tell  us,  "  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory  was 
first  built  upon  the  credit  of  those  fabulous  dia- 
logues, attributed  to  Gregory  1st,  about  the  year 
600."  Roffensis,  and  Pollidore  Virgil,  inform 
us,  that  this  doctrine  was  not  believed  by  the 
early  Greek  Fathers,  and  that  it  was  but  lately 
known  by  the  church  as  a  doctrine.  The  earliest 
Latin  Fathers  also,  were  strangers  to  this  inno- 
vation ;  and  it  may  with  confidence  be  asserted, 
that  for  500  years  after  the  death  of  Christ  not  one 
of  them  can  be  named  who  held,  throughout,  this  ar- 
ticle of  faith,  as  now  professed  by  the  church  of 
Home.  This  doctrine,  besides  being  a  novelty, 
is  directly  contradictory  to  the  word  of  God. 
It  supposes  that  the  satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ 
does  not  procure  a  full  remission  of  sins, 
either  before  we  die,  or  perhaps  long  after :  it 
supposes  that  a  creature,  and  he  sinful,  can  make 
a  meritorious  satisfaction  to  God  for  his  sins  by 
suffering,  and  thus  mend  the  imperfect  satisfaction 
of  Christ :  it  supposes  that  God  pardons  men, 
and  yet  punishes  them  afterwards  :  it  holds  that 
God  punishes  the  same  sins  twice,  viz':  in  the 
death  of  his  Son  and  then  in  Purgatory :  that  He 
applies  pardonby  punishment,  and  remits  our  debts 
by  making  us  pay  them  :  that  there  is  a  distinction 
between  sins  venial  and  sins  mortal,  i.  e.  that 
some  sins  are  trivial,  and  only  some  deserve  eter- 
nal punishment :  it  supposes  that  God  forgives 
our  greater  sins  freely,  and  yet  punishes  us  for 
our  lesser:  it  relies  also  upon  this,  that  "God 
requires  of  us  a  full  exchange  of  penances  and 
satisfactions,  which  must  regularly  be  paid  here 
or  hereafter,  even  by  those  who  are  pardoned 
here,  which  if  it  be  true,  we  are  all  undone  :" 
it  admits  that  a  priest's  mass  on  earth  will  re- 
lieve a  soul  from  purgatory,  when  Christ's  in- 
tercession in  heaven  will  not :  it  supposes  ages 
perhaps  of  sufferings  after  death,  by  (those  who 
are  the  children  of  God,  and  not  guilty  in  his 
sight :  in  a  word,  it  is  the  parent  of  indulgences, 
makes  the  Church  a  mart  where  sin,  and  heaven, 
and  hell,  the  blood  of  Jesus,  and  the  souls  of  men 
are  suspended  on  the  will  of  a  priest,  and  commuted 
for  money,  so  that  the  principal  calamity,  and 


crime,  is  to  be  poor.  Now,  not  one  of  these  sup- 
positions is  accordant  with  the  word  of  God  ;  but 
all  are  directly  opposed  to  it,  as  the  following 
Scriptures  sufficiently  show.  Rom.  viii.  1. 
"There  is  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to 
them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  1  John 
i.  7.  9.  "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  His  Son 
cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."-«-«"If  we  confess  our 
sins  He  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our 
sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness." 
Rev.  xiv.  13.  "I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven  say- 
ing write,  blessed  are  the  dead  that  die  in  the 
Lord  from  henceforth,  yea  saith  the  Spirit  that 
they  may  rest  from  their  labours."  Picherellus, 
one  of  your  doctors  of  the  Sorbonne,  confesses 
that  "  St.  John,  by  this  last  mentioned  Scrip- 
ture, hath  put  out  forever  the  fire  of  Purga- 
tory." 

And  again,  "There  is  no  fuel  in  Scripture,  either 
to  kindle  or  maintain  the  fire  of  Purgatory." 
(In  Massa.)  Matthew  v.  22.  "  Whosoever  shall 
say  unto  his  brother,  thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger 
of hell  fire.'1'1  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  little  sin 
mentioned  in  all  the  word  of  God  !  See  also  Heb. 
i.  3.  Matt.  x.  8.  Rom.  iii.  24,  and  viii.  32.  Colos. 
ii.  13.  2  Cor.  v.  1.  8.  Isaiah  lvii.  1.  Luke  xvi. 
22.  Jesus  said,  even  to  the  thief  upon  the  cross, 
'■'■this  day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise;" 
and  he  says  to  all  men  every  where.  (John  v. 
24.)  "  He  that  believeth  my  word  and  believeth 
on  hirn  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life  and 
shall  not  come  into  judgment,  but  hath  passed 
from  death  unto  life.''''  On  the  other  hand  he 
hath  also  said,  (John  viii.- 21.)  "I  go  my  way 
and  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die  in  your  sins; 
whither  I  go  ye  cannot  come."  As  to  the  pas- 
sage in  Matthew  xii.  32.  Bellarmine  owns  that 
"  Purgatory  cannot  by  any  rule  of  logic  be 
proved  from  it,  as  the  sin  there  mentioned  was 
never  to  be  purged,  being  damnable."  Maldonat 
acknowledges  that  "  Purgatory  cannot  be  proved 
from  Matth.  v.  25,  26.,  as  the  prison  there  spoken 
of  is  Hell  and  not  Purgatory."  Peter  de  Soto 
allows,  "it  cannot  be  proved  from  1  Cor.  iii.  15. 
as  it  is  not  persons  but  vain  doctrines  called  wood, 
hay,  stubble,  which  some  well  meaning  but  mis- 
taken teachers  add  to  the  true,  that  shall  in  the 
day  of  judgment  be  tried  by  fire  and  be  burned, 
and  themselves  shall  hardly  escape,  even  as  one 
escapeth  out  of  the  fire."  This  novel  and  un- 
christian doctrine,  as  the  Greek  Protestants  quoted 
above,  justly  intimate,  relaxes  the  efforts  of  men 
in  fleeing  from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  criminally 
holds  forth  the  vain  hope  that  their  future  suffer- 
ings will  have  an  end.  You  have  often,  alluded 
in  your  letters  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Universal- 
ists;  and  I  agree  with  you  in  thinking  them  un- 
scriptural,  and  destructive.  But  for  all  practical 
purposes,  in  deluding  and  destroying  mens'  souls, 
the  doctrine  of  Purgatory  is  equally  efficacious ; 
it  is  even  less  consistent ;  and  from  the  extent  of 
your  communion  (though  a  profitable  fable  to  the 
priesthood  in  this  world,)  it  spreads  a  far  wider 
ruin  than  the  other  doctrine.  Against  this  dread- 
ful doctrine,  enthroned  as  it  is  in  the  standards 
of  your  church,  and  hedged  about  with  terrible 


195 


anathemas,  we  protest,  and  pronounce  it  incapa- 
ble of  defence. 

Here  then  are  four  other  cardinal  doctrines  of 
the  church  of  Rome,  which,  if  the  Bible  contains 
the  Christian  religion,  are  as  unlike  to  Christianity 
as  they  are  to  the  Koran,  and  are  far  more  like  the 
religion  of  heathen  Rome  than  that  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

My  two  previous  letters  remain  unanswered, 
and  very  much  unnoticed  by  you.  This  of  course 
is  the  3d  in  the  series.  By  this  time  it  must 
be  seen  by  all,  that  you  feel  the  safety  of  Roman- 
ism to  lie  in  its  seclusion  from  the  public  eye. 
If  after  attacking  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  and 
withholding  your  own,  you  can  manage  to  attack 
the  Protestant  religion  also,  so  as,  to  withhold 
your  own,  we  must  concede  to  you  the  palm  of 
adroitness  at  least,  especially  when  you  also 
manage  to  appear  the  person  standing  on  the  de- 
fensive against  the  attacks  of  a  disputant  who  has 
challenged  you.  Honesty  however  is  the  best  po- 
licy, and  as  I  met  your  attack  on  our  rule  of  faith, 
so  will  I  even  in  anticipation  of  the  time,  meet  your 
attacks  on  the  Protestant  religion  ;  for  I  plainly 
perceive  that  you  are  not  disposed  to  meet'me  in  dis- 
cussing the  peculiarities  of  Romanism.  The  fol- 
lowing passage,  which  you  /e//us  incloses  a  grand 
dilemma,  is  noticed  chiefly  to  gratify  yourself. 
"  In  my  last  letter  I  reduced  the  question  to  the 
simplicity  of  a  dilemma,  from  which  I  defy  you 
to  escape.  It  is  this  :  Either  the  Protestant  reli- 
gion is  a  religion  differing  from  the  religion  of 
Christ;  and  by  this  admission  you  give  up  the 
question;  or  else,  the  religion  of  Christ  was  not 
professed  by  any  society  of  Christians  previous  to  the 
time  of  Luther.  And  in  that  case  the  religion  of 
Christ  is  only  three  hundred  years  old ! !  To 
which  of  these  alternatives  do  you  wish  to  cling  ? 
for  one  of  them  is  inevitable.  To  this  argument, 
you  oppose  the  4  defence'  of  silence.  Not  a 
word  of  authority;  not  a  word  of  reasoning!  Si- 
lence only,  prudent  silence."  Now  I  must  beg 
pardon  for  passing  it  by  before;  but  like  the  "pa- 
thetic part"  of  the  young  advocate's  speech,  of 
which  he  gave  the  jury  notice,  when  coming  to  it, 
I  should  never  have  known  it,  if  you  had  not  told 
me  that  it  was  a  dilemma.  Our  religion  existed 
so  long  before  the  days  of  Luther'as  the  Bible  ex- 
isted. It  is  distinctly  taught  by  the  early  Chris- 
tians, Martyrs  and  Confessors  of  the  first  three 
centuries;  it  is  recorded  clearly  in  the  earliest 
creeds  down  to  the  days  of  Athanasius;  it  was 
taught  and  defended  in  the  earliest  councils;  it 
was  established  in  the  first  ages  in  Jerusalem  and 
other  parts  of  Palestine,  in  Asia,  Greece,  Egypt, 
and  Rome  herself;  it  was  afterwards  corrupted 
by  that  same  church  of  Rome ;  and  we  have 
"  left  the  rust  and  kept  the  metal.''''  The  Reforma- 
tion is  of  the  errors,  not  the  true  religion,  Jbuhave 
left  Christ,  not  we.  We  have  been  driven  from 
and  left  you,  not  Christ:  the  Reformation  is  sub- 
sequent to  the  errors  it  reforms,  otherwise  it  were 
not  a  reformation  but  an  unchristian  change. 
Sound  Christianity  was  primitive :  to  it  we  return. 
If  any  honest  inquirer  taking  the  natural  sense 
of  language  (and  can  your  authority  justly  give 


any  other  sense  1)  will  examine  the  word  of  God, 
and  all  these  various  early  documents  to  which 
we  refer,  and  compare  them  with  the  Protestant 
religion  properly  so  called,  he  will  find  it  in  all 
its  simplicity  and  fulness  therein  recorded.  But 
if  on  the  other  hand,  you  choose  to  ascend,  we 
can  show  you  our  religion  "  professed  by  so- 
cieties of  Christians"  long  before  the  days  of 
Luther.  The  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  Vol.  3. 
Cent.  12.  chapter  8.  tell  us  of  a  people  whom 
your  church  in  vain  sought  to  destroy,  pro- 
fessing such  articles  of  faith  as  these.  "The 
Sacraments  of  the  church  of  Christ  are  two, 
Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  :  Mass- 
es are  impious,  and  it  is  madness  to  say  them 
for  the  dead :  Purgatory  is  an  invention  of 
men :  the  invocation  and  worshipping  of  dead 
saints  is  idolatry  :  the  Pope  has  not  the  primacy 
over  all  the  churches  of  Christ,  neither  has  he  the 
power  of  both  the  swords  :  Vows  of  celibacy  are 
inventions  of  men,  and  occasions  of  Sodomy : 
the  marriage  of  Priests  is  both  lawful  and  neces- 
sary:  the  reading  and  knowledge  of  the  holy 
Scriptures  is  open  to  all :  commemorations  of  the 
dead,  pilgrimages,  &c,  are  diabolical  inven- 
tions." See  also  two  "confessions  of  their  faith" 
furnished  by  John  Paul  Perrin ;  see  also  Reine- 
rius  Sacco,  and  jEneus  Sylvius,  Claudius  Sies- 
selius,  all  Papal  writers  in  proof  of  the  Protestant 
doctrines  of  the  Waldenses,  ages  before  Luther. 
Reinerius  thus  writes:  "Among  the  sects  (he 
says)  which  still  are,  or  have  been,  there  is  not 
any  more  pernicious  to  the  church,  than  that  of 
the  Leonists  (Waldenses);  and  this  for  three  rea- 
sons, the  first  is  because  their  opposition  has  been 
of  very  long  continuance.  Add  to  which  that  this 
sect  has  become  very  general,  for  there  is  scarcely 
a  country  to  be  found  in  which  this  heresy  is  not 
planted.  And,  in  the  third  place,  because  while 
all  other  sects  beget  in  people  a  dread  and  hor- 
ror of  them  on  account  of  their  blasphemies 
against  God,  this,  on  the  contrary,  hath  a  great 
appearance  of  godliness  ;  for  they  live  righteous- 
ly before  men,  believe  rightly  concerning  God  in 
every  particular,  holding  all  the  articles  contain- 
ed in  the  (Apostles')  creed,  but  hating  and  revil- 
ing the  church  of  Rome,  and  on  this  subject  they 
are  readily  believed  by  the  people."  (Reinerius 
contra  Waldenses  in  Perrin,  b.  2.  ch.  1.)  Thuanus 
the  historian,  book  6,  bears  the  same  testimony 
to  the  Protestant  doctrines  of  the  Waldenses.  So 
also  Mazery  says  of  these  heretics,  "  avoient  a- 
peu,pres  mesmes  opiniones  que  ceux  qu'  on  nom- 
me  au  jourd'  huy  Calvinistes."  "They  had  al- 
most the  same  opinions  as  those  who  are  now 
called  Cahinists"  Let  it  be  remembered  that 
these  are  Roman  Catholic  Historians.  Again,  the 
Greek  church  which  you  own  to  be  an  ancient 
church,  also  protests  against  your  half-commu- 
nion, Purgatory,  merits  (human,)  supererogation, 
worship  of  images,  concealing  the  Scripture  in 
an  unknown  tongue,  extreme  unction,  sale  of 
masses,  and  infallibility.  The  ancient  Arminian 
church,  rejects  the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope,  Tran- 
substantiation,  and  Purgatory,  and  excommuni- 
cates those  who  worship   images.     The  Jacob- 


196 


ites,  the  Syrian,  the  Egyptian,  and  Abyssinian 
Christians  also  reject  nearly  all  the  Romish  errors 
against  which  we  protest. 

How  plain  it  is  then  from  these  testimonies, 
that  the  Protestant  religion  was  professed,  not 
only  ages  before  the  days  of  Luther,  but  existed 
from  the  beginning,  and  descended  for  centuries 
even  in  your  own  church,  until  she  corrupted  it 
and  made  it  an  anti-christian  Papacy.  The  di- 
lemma then  reverts  to  you,  and  that  on  your  own 
principles.  Either  the  Roman  Catholic  religion 
differs  from  the  religion  of  Christ  (and  by  this 
admission  you  give  up  the  question)  or  else  the 
religion  of  Christ  did  not  exist  for  many  centuries 
after  the  death  of  its  author. 

So  much  for  your  dilemma.  Now  the  posture  of 
the  question  between  us  is  this.  Here  is  the 
Bible;  you  and  I  differ  as  to  the  best'mode  of 
finding  out  what  it  means;  but  we  both  agree 
that  its  meaning,  when  gotten  at,  is  God's  will  and 
truth,  and  therefore  consonant  to  the  religion  of 
Christ.  We  have  for  some  time  been  discussing 
the  best  means  for  finding  out  its  contents  ;  but 
surely  it  is  easy  to  say  whatare  the  doctrines  which 
we  actually  have  deduced  from  that  book.  This 
discussion  relates  to  those  doctrines.  Now  the 
Church  of  Rome  deduces  certain  doctrines;  Protes- 
tants also,  certain  doctrines;  the  question  is  not  how, 
but  luhat  are  they  ?  In  some  points  we  agree.  This 
you  admit  in  your  last  letter  when  you  say  "  touch- 
ing what  are  called  '  orthodox'  tenets  among  Pro- 
testants, J  have  to  observe  that  they  are  all  found 
in  the  Catholic  Church.  These  doctrines  always 
existed  in  the  church,  and  the  Reformers  in  go- 
ing out  from  the  church,  carried  them  forth,  etc." 
Then  it  follows  that  they  are  our  doctrines  and 
yours,  and  as  to  them  there  is  no  dispute.  So  far 
therefore  as  the  agreed  points  go,  if  your  church 
is  the  church  of  Christ,  so  is  the  the  Protestant 
church. 

Now  as  to  disputed  points  against  which 
we  protest,  you  hold  that  they  also  are  a  part  of 
the  religion  of  Christ.  These  disputed  tenets,  I 
stated  at  large  in  my  definition  of  the  Protestant 
religion  ;  and  I  have  exposed  many  of  them  in 
this  and  in  former  letters.  Since  then  you  hold 
these  disputed  points  to  be  part  of  the  religion 
of  Christ,  it  is  your  business  to  prove  that  they 
are  so.  If  I  have  not  stated  them  to  suit  you, 
tell  us  what  they  are,  and  having  stated,  prove 
them.  This  you  entirely  decline  to  do,  and 
shrinking  from  it,  undertake  to  prove  a  negative, 
viz.  that  the  Protestant  religion  is  not  the  reli- 
gion of  Christ.  While  you  cling  to  this  absur- 
dity, and  shrink  from  the  fair  and  manly  meeting 
of  the  question,  your  cause  is  abandoned. 

Again,  according  to  the  state  of  the  question, 
you  must  go  further,  and  show  that  these  disput- 
ed tenets  are  such  essential  parts  of  the  religion 
of  Christ,  that  not  to  hold  them  is  to  unchurch 
us.  Until  you  have  done  this,  no  reason  appears 
why  we  may  not  hold  the  religion  of  Christ,  and 
yet  reject  them.  This  is  so  incumbent  upon  you 
in  the  discussion  of  this  question,  that  until  you 
have  done  it,  you  may  abuse  the  Reformers  and 
laud  the  Papacy  without  measure,  and  yet  no  de- 


monstration is  given  that  the  Protestant  religion 

is  not  the  religion  of  Christ. 

Still  further,  if  these  disputed  points  are  so  es- 
sential, that  if  true  we  must  hold  them  before  we 
can  be  a  church  of  Christ,  (or  our  religion  be  His 
religion);  then,  on  the  other  hand,  it  follows,  that 
if  false  they  are  so  essential  that  all  who  hold 
them  are  truly  unchurched,  and  their  religion  is 
not  the  religion  of  Christ.  This  reasoning  isnot 
only  conclusive,  but  it  is  so  by  your  own  show- 
ing. It  follows,  therefore,  not  only  that  ours  is  a 
true  church  and  our  religion  the  religion  of  Christ, 
but  (Mr.  Hughes  being  judge)  ours  is  the  only 
true  church  and  religion,  unless  you  can  prove  these 
exclusive  points.  How  strangely  then  must  you. 
appear  to  the  community  of  readers,  when  time 
after  time  you  refuse  to  touch  these  disputed 
points,  and  leaving  the  only  ground  upon  which 
the  question  can  be  settled,  rove  through  decla- 
matory pages,  and  garbled  extracts  from  the  wri- 
tings of  the  Reformers,  in  order  to  prove  a  nega- 
tive. Let  me  still  further  illustrate  this  subject. 
Take  the  doctrine  of  human  merits,  or  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Host,  or  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  or 
any  of  the  leading  points  upon  which  we  differ. 
These  points  are  so  fundamental,  that  you  de- 
nounce us  as  heretics  for  rejecting  them  ;  and  we 
protest  against  you  as  anti-christian  for  holding 
them.  In  so  far  as  we  agree  with  you,  ours  is 
the  religion  of  Christ  if  yours  is,  by  our  holding 
the  agreed  points;  but  if  your  church  he -wrong 
in  those  fundamental  points  which  we  reject, 
then  ours  is  a  true  church,  and  yours  is  not; 
whereas  if  we  are  right  in  holding  what  your 
church  rejects,  then  still  ours  is  a  true  church  and 
yours  is  not.  If,  therefore,  you  will  not  come  up 
to  the  discussion  of  the  points  on  which  we  dif- 
fer, and  on  which  the  question  turns,  I  must  pur- 
sue the  line  of  my  argument  as  already  begun, 
and  the  tenets  in  which  you  are  interested,  must 
be  considered  incapable  of  defence. 

Your  first  question,  viz:  "  Did  there  ever 
exist  a  society  of  Christians  (previous  to  the  Re- 
formation,) agreeing  in  doctrines  with  any  sect  of 
Protestants'?"  has  been  answered  at  large,  in  this 
letter,  in  my  exposure  of  your  fanciful  dilemma. 
As  you  ask  however,  "  a  categorical  answer,"  to 
your  dogmatic  questions,  I  answer  without  hesita- 
tion, Yes.  When,  however,  you  include  Socinus 
among  Protestants,  I  refer  you  for  answer  to  Si- 
mon Magus  the  father  of  Papal  Simony  and  In- 
dulgences. His  system  revived  in  your  church, 
was  one  of  the  articles  for  reformation.  For  the 
parentage  of  celibacy,  I  refer  you  to  the  Mani- 
chees :  for  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  I  re- 
mind you  of  the  Collyridian  idolators  from  whom 
(see  Epiphanius)  it  is  derived  by  your  church. 

"  2d  Question.  Take  the  Reformers  as  they 
have  been  described  by  themselves,  is  it  clear  that 
they  were  the  men  whom  God  would  have  se- 
lected to  purify  his  church  V 

Answer.  From  the  caricature  which  you  have 
given,  in  clipped  extracts,  of  their  character  and 
doctrines,  no  just  conception  can  be  formed  of  the 
one  or  the  other.  This  shall  be  shown  to  your 
own  confusion,  and  in  part  even  in  the  present  let- 


197 


ler.  But  allowing  them  to  have  been  all  that  your 
injustice  has  ascribed  to  them,  I  ask,  if  they  were 
unfit  men  to  reform,  what  were  the  Popes  to  sustain 
a  religion  ?  Let  us  take  a  glance  at  the  thirteenth 
schism  which  disgraced  the  Papacy  in  the  days 
of  Formosus  and  Sergius.  Formosus,  A.  D.  890, 
gained  the  Pontificate  by  bribery.  Sergius  his 
rival  was  expelled  by  royal  power.  Stephen,  the 
successor  of  Formosus,  unearthed  the  dead  body 
of  Formosus,  had  a  mock  trial  of  him,  and  having 
cut  off  his  head  and  fingers  threw  his  body  into 
theTyber,  and  declared  all  his  acts  and  ordinations 
invalid.  The  Romans  soon  after  expelled  Stephen 
from  the  Hierarchy.  Baronius  tells  us  that  he 
entered  like  a  thief,  and  died  by  the  rope.  Bruys 
says  he  was  as  ignorant  as  he  was  wicked.  In 
the  nineteenth  schism  Benedict,  Sylvester,  and 
John,  reigned  in  one  filthy  triumvirate  at  the  same 
time,  (who  then  was  Pope  ])  They  occupied  in 
Rome  St.  Mary's,  the  Vatican,  and  the  Lateran. 
Binius  VII.  221,  and  Labbeus  II.  1 180,  called  them 
"  a  three  headed  monster  rising  from  the  gates  of 
Hell  infesting  in  a  most  woful  manner  the  most 
Holy  chair  of  Peter."  Triceps  bestia  ab  infero- 
rum  portis  emergens  sanctissimam  Petri  Cathe- 
drum  miserime  infestavit.  A  clever  link,  this, 
in  the  sacred  and  unbroken  chain  of  Pontifical 
succession  !  The  great  western,  or  twenty-ninth 
schism,  which  lasted  for  fifty  years,  broke  to 
atoms  the  Pontifical  succession,  and  exhibited  to 
an  astonished  world,  a  holy  war  for  half  a  century, 
amidst  a  band  of  ruffians,  calling  themselves 
the  vicegerents  of  the  Prince  of  Peace.  I  need 
not  dwell  here,  nor  point  you  again  to  the  fifty 
popes  called  by  your  historian  "  apostate  rather 
than  apostolicul.''''  But  this  brief  sketch  may  suf- 
fice to  show  that  the  Reformers,  however  bad, 
were  at  least  as  well  fitted  to  reform,  as  such 
popes  to  head  and  sustain  a  religion. 

Again,  we  never  set  up  these  Reformers  as  the 
vicegerents  of  God,  but  only  as  leaders  in  Reform 
to  which  every  Christian  is  in  his  measure  not  only 
competent,  but  also  bound  byohis  duty  to  God  and 
to  the  church.  For  such  a  wgrk  miracles  are  not  re- 
quired. Such  a  work  was  often  accomplished  in 
the  Old  Testament  church,  of  which  it  is  written, 
"now  for  a  long  season  Israel  hath  been  without 
the  true  God,  and  without  a  teaching  Priest  and 
without  law."  2  Chron.  xv.  3. 

"Question  3d.  Does  the  religion  of  Christ  teach 
the  doctrines  of  Protestantism,  from  the  highest 
point  of  Episcopalianism,  down  the  descending 
scale  to  the  farthest  verge  of  Unitarianism  1  if  not, 
the  Protestant  religion  is  not  the  religion  of 
Christ." 

Answer.  You  have  unwittingly,  but  satisfacto- 
rily, answered  this  question  for  me,  when  you 
say  in  your  last  letter,  "  touching  what  are  called 
orthodox  tenets  among  Protestants,  I  have  to  observe 
that  they  are  all  found  in  the  Catholic  church." 
Unitarianism,  Universalism,  &c,  are  not  found 
in  the  Bible,  and  therefore  make  no  part  of  the 
Protestant  religion,  "which  is  exclusively  de- 
rived from  and  consistent  with  the  word  of  God." 
Ours  is  not  a  religion  of  "  opinions,"  as  you 
mean  by  the  word,  (which  however  is  an  absurd 


and  unphilosophical  use  of  it,)  but  of  evangelical 
doctrine.  Our  Bible  does  not  teach  any  thing, 
and  every  thing,  though  you  say  it  does  out  of 
your  hands  ,■  and  those  who  unite  with  you  in 
saying  that  it  does,  are  with  you,  detainers  of  the 
Bible,  and  as  to  truth,  heretics.  You  are  hardly 
a  stranger  to  the  innumerable  sects  which  have 
arisen  up  in  your  churOh.  The  Pope  once  signed 
the  Arian  Creed  and  the  body  of  the  church  fol- 
lowed him.  There  is  not  a  heresy  of  modern 
times  that  did  not  exist  before  the  Reformation; 
in  the  days  of  Epiphanius  they  had  increased  to 
eighty,  and  in  the  time  of  Philaster  to  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty.  Flagellism,  Convulsonianism, 
and  the  Festival  of  the  Ass,  I  must  hereafter  in- 
troduce to  your  notice.  I  now  assert,  and  shall 
hereafter^arove,  that  no  church  on  earth  has  had  so 
many  vamLtions  in  doctrine,  and  so  many  heresies  in 
its  bosom,  as  the  church  of  Rome. 

Your  4th  question  regards  the  Reformers'  min- 
isterial authority,  and  your  5th  the  transmission 
of  that  authority.  I  here  answer  in  a  word,  that 
whatever  authority  your  church  possessed  in  this 
way  was  imparted  to  them ;  so  that  theirs  is  the 
same:  and  their  abundant  reasons  forreform,  and  for 
separating  from  your  church,  when  she  refused  v. 
Reformation,  fully  justify  them  in  disregarding 
her  deposition  ;  and  render  their  "  unfrocking" 
(as  you  are  pleased  to  call  it,)  as  vain  as  the  au- 
thors of  it  were  coriupt. 

I  close  the  present  letter  (too  long  already),  by 
exposing  as  a  specimen  of  your  quotations,  the  very 
adventurous  and  self-convicting  way  in  which  you 
have  tortured  the  writings  of  Luther.  Your  first 
and  second  citations,  do  not  appear  after  some 
search,  in  the  places  to  which  you  refer.  (I  hope 
for  your  own  sake  you  have  not  depended  upon 
some  of  the  slanderous  excerpts  of  the  Je- 
suits.) The  third  you  thus  give  :  "  Let  this  be 
your  rule  in  interpreting  the  Scriptures;  when- 
ever they  command  a  good  vjork,  do  you  under- 
stand that  they  forbid  if; — and  you  say,  "is  this 
the  religion  of  Christ?  Oh,  what  a  task  you 
have  undertaken  !"  In  the  previous  paragraphs, 
Luther  had  been  recommending  the  performance 
of  good  works  without  relying  on  the  merit  of 
them,  with  great  zeal,  clearness  and  force,  as 
the  fruit  of  faith,  and  to  the  glory  of  God;  and  says 
they  should  be  gratuitous,  abundant  and  sponta- 
neous. He  next  proceeds  to  show  what  good 
works  truly  are.  That  I  may  do  you  no  injus- 
tice, I  will  give  the  original  latin  and  the  transla- 
tion in  parallel  columns,  and  show  in  italics  how 
your  garbled  extract  comes  in. 


r 


"  Opera  vere  bona." 
Qui  isto  modo  bona  ope- 
ranlur.  non  sibi,  sed  Deo, 
tanquam  instrumentum  Dei, 
operanlur,  nihil  in  his  sibi 
arrogant,  solo  Dei  contenti, 
in  quo  sperant  ;  qui  non 
sic  operanlur.  simioe  sunt 
sanctorum  virorum.  Adco 
Becesse  est  superstilionem 
fieri  e#  omnium  sanctorum 
vita,  nisi  Patrem  coalestem 
in  his  didicerint  glorificare. 


"  Works  truly  good." 
Those  who  perform  good 
Works  in  this  manner  work 
not  to  themselves,  but  to 
God,  and  as  instruments  of 
God,  not  arrogating  any 
ihi  g  to  themselves,  bul  as 
cribing  ciil  l"  God,  in  whom 
i Ik- \-  i ii i -. s  Those  «  bo 
not  perto  tn  good  works  in 
this  manner  are  but  the 
apes  of  holy  men :  so  that 
the      unavoidable     cons*- 


198 


Recto  ergo  dicitur.  "  Uni- 
versse  vise  Domini  miseri- 
cordia  et  Veritas ;"  id  est, 
tuDC  opera  fieri  bona,  quan- 
do  Ipse  solus  totus  ac  total- 
iter  ea  facit  in  nobis,  ut 
operis  nulla  pars  ad  nos  per- 
tineat.  Quare  hie  tibi  sit 
canon,  ubi  scriptura  prcece- 
pit  bonum  opus  Jieri,  sic  in- 
tetligas,  quod  prolubeat  te 
facere  bonum  opus,  cum  id 
non  possis  sed,  ut  Sabba- 
tum,  Deo  sanctitices.  mor- 
tuussit  et  sepuhus,  sinasque 
Deum  in  te  operare.  At 
hoc  autem  non  pervenies 
unquam,  nisi  per  fidem, 
spem  et  caritaiem,  id  est 
per  tui  morlificationem  et 
omnium  operum  tuorem. 
Operatio  in  Psalmum  V. 
Opera.  Zom.UI.fol.  111. 


quence  is,  that  "superstition 
will  be  produced  in  the  lives 
ofhoty  men,  unless  they  in 
these  things  glorify  their 
Father  in  heaven.  It  is 
therefore  rightly  said,  "all 
the  ways  of  the  Lord  are 
mercy  and  truth;"  that  is, 
good  works  may  then  be 
said  to  be  performed,  when 
^He  alone,  totally  and  eh'-' 
lirely  works  thein  in  us.  so 
that  no  part  of  the  workTie*- 
longs  to  ourselves.  Where- 
fore let  this  be  your  rule, 
when  the  Scripture  com- 
mands a  good  work  to  be 
done,  you  are  to  understand 
it  as  prohibiting  you  from 
doing  the  good  work,  since 
you  are  not  able  to  per- 
form it,  but  thaApu  sanctify 
a  rest  to  God,Hid  become 
as  dead  and  buried,  and  > 
permit  God  to  work  in  you.. 


But  to  this   you  will  never 

come  unless  by  faith,  hope 

:     and  charity — that  is  by  the 

'.     mortification  of  self,  and   of 

1    all  your  own  works. 

I  suppose  you  remember  my  allusion  (on  the 
extract  you  made  from  Tertu'lian  in  this  same 
style)  to  the  man  who  proved  from  the  Bible  that 
there  was  no  God,  by  dropping-  half  the  verse ! 
So  here  the  half  verse  makes  Luther  talk  like  a 
libertine  as  to  morals,  and  a  fool  as  to  inlerpreta- 
tation,  while  the  whole  passage  is  designed  to 
recommend  good  works,  to  purify  them  by  grace, 
to  derive  them  from  God,  to  destroy  self,  and  glo- 
rify God  by  active  obedience,  and  mortification  ! 
strange  !  strange  liberties  !  With  such  a  pair  of 
scales  we  can  weigh  the  characters  given  to  the 
Reformers  by  you ;  and  see  how  much  they 
gain  when  as  you  say,  you  give  their  opinions  in 
their  oion  words.     Yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinridge. 


X 


% 


CONTROVERSY N°.  25. 


Is  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  July  19,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — The  question  is  about  "  the  Protes- 
tant Religion,"  and  not  about  Transubstantiation 
or  Purgatory.  But  I  foresaw,  and  even  pre- 
dicted, that  you  would  evade  the  subject  at  issue. 
You  had  repeatedly  told  us,  that  you  had  demol- 
ished the  doctrines  of  the  Eucharist,  Purgatory, 
Indulgences,  &c.  &c.  &c,  and  if  so,  why  did  you 
waste  Jive  columns  of  your  last  letter  in  doing 
what  you  had  so  frequently  and  so  effectually  done 
before  1  If  you  betray  such  want  of  confidence 
in  your  own  assertions,  you  must  not  be  surprised 
at  the  jocund  incredulity  with  which  they  are  re- 
ceived by  your  readers. 

In  my  last  letter  I  gave  you  what  you  had  pre- 
viously called  for — "  manly  arguments;"  couch- 
ed in  genteel  language,  except  perhaps  the  quo- 
tations from  the  writings  of  the  "  Reformers," 
for  which  I  must  decline  all  responsibility. 
How  have  you  met  these  arguments'?  You  have 
not  met  them  at  all.  No  man,  Catholic  or  Pro- 
testant, liberal  or  even  bigoted,  will  say  that  your 
last  letter  is,  or  deserves  to  be  called,  an  answer 
to  mine.  You  had  undertaken  to  prove  that 
"the  Protestant  Religion  is  the  Religion  of  Christ,-" 
and,  knowing  that  you  would  respect  the  tuitness- 
es,  I  gave  you  the  testimony  of  the  Reformers 
themselves,  to  prove  that  it  is  not.  I  gave  their 
doctrines,  by  which  they  set  forth  that  man  has 
not  free  will,  but  is  a.  mere  machine ;  and  that 
God  is  an  omnipotent  tyrant,  condemning  his 
creatures  for  violating  precepts,  which  he  knew 
in  imposing  them  could  not  be  accomplished  ? 
And  all  this,  as  they  taught,  according  to  the 
Bible !  I  gave  you  their  characters,  as  drawn  by 
themselves,  and  if  they  spoke  the  truth,  it  would 
be  difficult  to  find  materials  for  a  darker  picture. 
I  gave  in  their  own  ivords,  the  immoral  effects  of 
the  Reformation  ;  and  to  all  these  things  there  is 
no  reply.  I  confronted  the  defender  of  the  Refor- 
mation, with  its  authors;  and  apparently  sur- 
prised that  such  evidence  should  have  been  de- 
rived from  such  a  quarter,  the  confessions  of  the 
clients  seem  to  have  chained  the  tongue  of  the 
advocate.  Still  he  has  written  a  letter,  called 
it  No.  XXIV.,  and  under  the  heading  of  the 
"  Protestant  Religion,"  he  has  given,  at  consid- 
erable length,  his  "  views,"  on  the  Catholic  doc- 
trines of  the  Eucharist,  and  Purgatory  ! !  He 
had  disproved  these  doctrines  several  times,  if  he 
can  believe  himself;  and  in  order  to  strengthen 
his  faith,  I  had  even  indulged  him  with  the  con- 
cession for  argument'  sake,  that  so  it  was :  but  it 
seems  he  would  believe  neither  of  us ;  and  be- 
hold, he  is  demolishing  transubstantiation  again  ! 


Who  will  say  after  this,  that  Protestants  do  not 
believe  in  works  of  supererogation  1  And  then 
the  conclusiveness  of  his  logic  !  "Transubstan- 
tiation, says  he,  is  as  young  as  1215,"  therefore, 
the  religion  of  the  Reformation,  (viz :  all  the 
sects  of  Protestantism)  is  the  Religion  of  Christ." 
Mahomedism  is  wrong,  therefore,  according  to 
this  new  species  of  logic,  Presbyterianism  is 
right. 

But  pray,  Rev.  Sir,  did  you  place  so  low  an 
estimate   on   the   intelligence   of  our  Protestant 
readers,   as   to  suppose  that   the   dullest   vision 
would  not  see  through  all  this  1     Do  you  imagine 
that  their  confidence  in  the  divinity  of  your  reli- 
gion will  stand  unshaken,  when  they  see  their 
minister — after  having  bound  himself  by  a  written 
agreement,  to  show  "  that  the  Protestant  Religion 
is  the  Religion   of  Christ," — flinching  from  the 
task  he  had  assumed,  and  returning  to  his  "  la- 
bour of  love,"  in  aspersing  doctrines  which  do 
not  belong  to  the  Protestant  Religion  ?     You  could 
not,  nor  can   you  now,  give  me  a  definition  of 
the  Protestant  Religion.     But  after  having  taken 
six  months   for   reflection,   you   come    out   with 
the    discovery  that  it  is    "the  Religion   of  the 
Reformation  ! !"     As  I  had    promised    to    "  res- 
pect"  your  definition,  I   proceeded  to  the  foun- 
tain head  ;  and  detailed  the  result  of  the  inves- 
tigation  in    my   last   letter.     It   seems  to    have 
taken  you  by  surprise ;  and  your  silence  as  to 
the   facts   and    authorities,    sufficiently   indicates 
that  even  yau  were  unacquainted  with  the  whole 
truth,  as  respects  the  doctrines  and  authors  of  the 
Religion  of  the   Reformation.     They  agreed  in 
rebellion,  but  in  nothing  else.     Each  accused   the 
other  of  receiving  his  doctrines  by  the  inspiration 
of  the   Devil.     Luther  acknowledges   that  from 
this  tutor,  he  first  learned  the  arguments  for  the 
overthrow  of  the  sacrifice  of  Mass.     But  still  he 
admitted  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  Euchar- 
ist;  this   Calvin   denied;    wielding   against  the 
Eucharist   those   arguments   and    objections,    of 
which  your   last  letter  is  but  the  feeble   echo ! 
Calvin's  successors  found,  that  by  applying  the 
same  kind  of  interpretation,  they  could  get  rid  of 
all  the  other  mysteries  of  Revelation,  and   for  the 
credit  of  their  philosophy,  the  children  have  com- 
pleted the  work  of  desolation  which  the  father 
had  begun. 

In  the  commencement  of  your  letter  you  charge 
me  with  having  maintained,  in  this  discussion,' 
principles  injurious  to  the  holy  Scriptures.  And 
after  having  invented  for  me  a  set  of  conse- 
quences which  I  disclaim,  you  go  so  far  as 
to  say,  "  this  is  Deism,  barefaced  Deism."  I 
am    certain    there   is  not    another   man    in    the 


200 


community,   besides  yourself,  that  can  discover 
Deism   in    the   principles    which    I    have    sup- 
ported during  this  controversy.     I  have  indeed, 
shown   that  Deism    necessarily  flows   from   the 
principles  of  Protestantism;     The  very   last  defi- 
nition you  give  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  is 
pregnant    with    that     consequence.       You    say 
"the  Bible  is  the  rule;  and  common-sense  in- 
terpretation  the   way  to  find   the  sense    of  the 
rule."       Your    "  common-sense    interpretation," 
tells  you,  that  transubstantiation  is  absurd  and 
impossible — another's  "common-sense  interpreta- 
tion" tells  him  that  the  incarnation  and  the  deity  of 
Christ  are  absurd  and  impossible — a  third  man's 
"  common-sense   interpretation,"  tells  him   that 
the  book    itself  is  a  book  of   contradiction,  as 
plainly  appears  by  the  contradictory  "  common- 
sense  interpretations"  which   Protestants  give  of 
it,  and  that  therefore,  revelation  is  absurd  and  im- 
possible.    Thus  it  is,  that  starting  from  a  false 
first  principle,  reason  evolves  consequences,  one 
from  another,  until  having  begun  with  "  the  Pro- 
testant rule  of  faith"  it  terminates  with  "  Deism, 
barefaced   Deism."     I  merely  pointed  out  these 
consequences  by  showing  that   Protestantism  is 
essentially  inconsistent  in  itself,  and  with  all  the 
principles  which  usually  govern  the  human  mind. 
You  deny  that  you  had  changed  your  defini- 
tion the  Protestant  rule  of  faith.     Did  you  not 
say  in  our  agreement  that  it  was  "infallible?" 
Did   you   not  in  your  very    first   letter  defend 
"  private  interpretation"  as  a  part  of  "  this  infal- 
lible" rule?     Did  you  not  in  letter  No.  18,  give 
it  up,  as  an  "abuse]"     Did  I  not  congratulate 
you  on  this  sensible  but  "  unexpected"  concession  1 
And   in  letter  No.  20,  did  you  not  take  up   the 
word  with  a  note  of  admiration  "  Unexpected  ! 
Strange  language  at  the  close  of  adiscusion,  when 
in  the  first  column  of  my  first  letter  five  months 
ago,  I  gave  this  definition  of  our  rule  of  faith,  viz. 
'The  word  of  God  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments."     You  then  charge  me 
■with  having  "  evaded"  the  real  Protestant  rule, 
and  "argued  against  its  abuses  alone."     What 
are  these  "  abuses,"  but  private  interpretation  ? 
And  yet,  it  is  the  verykey  you  put  into  the  hands 
of  every  man,  woman  and  child  whereby  to  unlock 
the    meaning  of  the  Scriptures — "  honest  com- 
mon-sense interpretation  is,  you  tell  us,  the  way  to 
ascertain  the  true  sense  of  the  rule."     It  seems  that 
Unitarians   and    Universalists    and    Swedenbor- 
gians  are  not  Protestants.     And  why  1     Because 


the  only  mystery,  then,  indeed,  Mr.  Breckinridge 
might  do  the  with  of  the  infidel,  by  arraigning  it  at 
the  tribunal  of  "common  siense."    The  language 
of  your  first  notice  of  this  doctrine,  Rev.  Sir,  brought, 
you,  as  you  may  recollect,  into  such  sympathetic 
harmony  of  reasoning  with  the  infidel  Volney,  that 
one  would  suppose  you  had  both  studied  theology 
in  the  same  school.     But  since  then,  it  seems  you 
have  discovered  a  secret,  which  proves  that,  in  phi- 
losophy at  least,  you  have  a  decided  superiority  over 
the  author  of  "  Ruins."     The  old  puzzle  about 
"  the  essense  of  matter"  is   solved  at  last.     For- 
merly, it  was  considered  that  the  senses  judge 
only  of  appearances,  and  accordingly  it  was  be- 
lieved, that  by  the  power  of  God,  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  might  exist  under  the  appearances  of 
bread  and  wine.   You,  however,  have  found  out  that 
the  properties  and  appearances  of  a  thing,  and  the 
substance  of  which  it  is  composed,  are  the  same, 
and  that  the  senses  determine  both.     Of  course 
you  do  not  believe  that  the  "  tongues  of  fire" 
which    rested  on  the  apostles   were    any    thing 
more  than  tongues  of  fire.     You  do  not  believe 
that  the  "  dove"  which  descended  on  the  Redeem- 
er at  his  baptism  in  the  Jordan  could   be  any 
thing  more  than  a  dove,  which  happened   to  be 
passing  that  way.     It  seems  that  rationalism  is 
not  confined  to  the  ministers  of  Germany  and  of 
Geneva.     The  Unitarians  and  Deists,  Rev.  Sir, 
will  make  a  whip  of  your  logic. 

Speaking  of  the  mode  in  which  certain  Protes- 
tant controversialists  treat  the  doctrine  of  the 
"  real  presence,"  Mr.  Stanley  Faber,  author 
of  the  "  Difficulties  of  Romanism,"  remarks, 
"  While  arguing  on  this  subject,  some  persons, 
I  regret  to  say,  have  been  far  too  copious  in 
the  use  of  those  unseemingly  terms,  impossi- 
bility and  absurdity.  To  such  language,  says 
he,  the  least  objection  is  its  reprehensible  want  of 
good  manners.  The  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, 
like  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  is  I  contend,  a  ques- 
tion not  of  abstract  reasoning,  but  of  pure  evidence." 
It  was  on  the  supposed  overthrow  of  the 
eucharist,  that  Socinus  calculated  on  the  des- 
truction of  the  Trinity.  Having  shown,  like 
you,  Rev.  Sir,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist 
is  the  grossest  idolatry,. he  goes  on  to  say,  "So 
also  we  hope  that  the  shocking  fictions  concern- 
ing God  and  his  Christ,  which  at  present  aie 
supposed  to  be  sacred  and  worthy  of  the  deepest 
reverence,  and  to  constitute  the  principle  myste- 
ries of  our  religion,  will,  with  God's  permission, 


says  Mr.  Mr.  Breckinridge,  although  they  have  1  be  so  laid  open  and  treated  with  such  scorn  that 
the  "  real  Protestant  rule,"  yet  they  have  not  j  every  one  will  be  ashamed  to  embrace  them 
"  honesty  and  common  sense,"  to  make  the  right    or  even  pay  any  attention  to  them."   (Tom.  1.) 


use  of  it.  Then,  Rev.  Sir,  what  will  you  say  of 
the  "  honesty  and  common  sense,"  of  the  Qua- 
kers, Baptists,  Methodists,  Episcopalians,  and 
Shakers  of  Lebanon,  &c.  &C.]  You  are  all  provid- 
ed with  the  "  real  Protestant  rule  of  faith."  But 
which  of  these  denominations  is  so  happy  as  to 
possess  "  honesty  and  common  sense"  for  the 
right  interpretation  of  the  real  rule  ? 

The  mysteries  of  Revelation  have  always  been 
subjects  of  scoffing  to  the  sceptic.  If  the  real 
presence  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  eucharist  were 


There  is  another  book,  which  I  shall  not  men- 
tion, in  which  your  arguments  or  rather  cavils 
against  the  mystery  of  the  eucharist,  are  brought 
out  in  still  bolder  relief,  as  applied  to  the  trini- 
ty. "  But  when,  (says  the  impious  author,) 
according  to  the  Christian  trinitarian  scheme 
one  part  of  God  is  represented  by  a  dying  man, 
and  another  part  called  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  a  fly- 
ing pigeon,  it  is  impossible  that  belief  can  attach 
to  such  wild  conceits."  Such  are  the  consequen- 
ces of  your  unhappy  reasoning  % 


301 


Thus,  Rev.  Sir,  you  perceive  that  the  weapons 
with  which  Calvin  and  his  associates  combated 
the  real  presence  of  Christ,  in  the  mystery  of  the 
euckarist,  have  passed  from  hand  to  hand  until 
they  are  now  wielded  by  the  Deist,  against  the 
mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity  itself.  Now  please, 
in  mercy  to  that  Christianity,  of  which  you  pro- 
fess to  be  a  minister,  review  your  argument  drawn 
from  reason  and  the  "testimony  of  the  senses;" 
and  instead  of  borrowing  wisdom  from  Pagans, 
for  the  explanation  of  the  Christian  mysteries,  ask 
your  own  reflection  whether  the  objection  is  not 
equally  strong  against  the  "real  presence"  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  under  the  "  appearance"  of  a  Dove, 
or  of"  fiery  tongues'?"  Infidelity,  be  assured,  is 
already  making  rapid  strides,  and  you  should  leave 
to  hands  less  sacred  than  your  own,  the  task  of 
furnishing  her  with  implements  of  destruction 
against  Christianity.  The  doctrine  of  the  eucha- 
rist,  believed  by  the  vast  majority  of  Christians, 
at  the  present  day;  believed  by  all  the  genera- 
tions of  the  church  previous  to  Luther,  and  so  fre- 
quently inculcated  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the 
New  Testament,  is  entitled  to,  at  least,  reverential 
notice.  Your  manifest  ignorance  of  the  doctrine 
and  of  its  evidences,  I  shall  expose  in  due 
season. 

When  you  charitably  insinuate,  that  masses  are 
sustained  by  the  love  of  money  in  the  Priesthood, 
you  certainly  cannot  expect  to  obtain  credit  for 
the  sincerity  of  your  charge.  If  we  were  wicked 
enough  to  have  our  consciences  for  sale,  we  are 
at  least  learned  enough,  to  know  that  a  higher 
price  mav  be  obtained  in  the  Protestant  market. 
We  would  embrace  the  Reformation,  share  in  the 
spoils  of  the  Bible  and  other  societies,  and  stand 
our  chance  for  "  a  call,"  to  two  thousand  a  year, 
as  well  as  the  best  of  you.  It  is  true  we  are  priests 
and  "  we  have  an  altar,  whereof  they  have  no 
power  to  eat  who  serve  the  tabernacle,"  or  belong 
to  the  Reformation  ;  and  it  is  true  that  "  to  offer  sa- 
crifice," is  the  chief  official  business  of  the  priest. 
But  still  he  does  not  neglect  the  other  pastoral  du- 
ties. He  preaches,  exhorts,  encourages,  consoles 
the  distressed,  and  whenever  he  has  money  or  bread, 
he  divides  with  the  orphans  who  have  neither.  He 
instructs  the  children  in  their  religious  and  moral 
duties,  he  attends  at  the  bedside  of  the  sick  and 
the  dying,  and  inhales  the  corrupted  atmosphere 
of  pestilence,  whilst  his  happier  brethren  of  the 
Reformation  are  enjoying  the  bliss  of  domestic  and 
connubial  felicity,  and  laughing  at  his  round  of 
popish  superstition.  Still,  it  is  true  as  your 
"  astonished  friend"  has  informed  you,  that  the 
celebration  of  the  sacrifice  of  mass  is  the  chief 
business  of  the  Priest. 

Might  I  be  permitted  to  ask  who  this  "  friend" 
is?  Is  Mr.  Burtt  at  work  again  ?  Surely  it  can- 
not be  the  Presbyterian  clergyman  who  has  re- 
cently honoured  me  with  an  occasional  visit.  The 
allusion  indeed,  reminds  me  of  a  conversation 
with  him  ;  but  still  I  cannot  imagine  that  he  would 
descend  to  such  a  course  as  you  intimate,  of  tale- 
bearing, or  that,  if  he  had,  you  would  be  imprudent 
enough  to  expose  him  by  publishing  his  "  re- 
ports."   I  believe  I  always  treated  him  politely, 


because  I  thought  him  not  unworthy  of  it.  But 
your  allusion  seems  to  shed  a  little  light  on  the 
object,  or  at  least  the  use  he  made  of  his  visits. 
Be  pleased  then  to  let  us  have  a  little  more,  just 
enough  to  clear  away,  or  confirm  the  suspicion 
which  you  have  awakened. 

Now  for  "  the  question."  You  say  the  Protes- 
tant religion  existed  before  Luther.  But  where  did 
it  exist?     "  In  the  Bible,"  you  reply.     But  how 
comes  it  that  for  1500  years,  no  one  had  been  able 
to  discover  it  in  the  Bible,  which  as  you  say,  is  so 
easily  understood.     In  answer  to  this  you  tell  me 
after  the  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  that  "  a  peo- 
ple" had  discarded  several  doctrines  of  the  church, 
previous  to  the  reformation ;  leaving  me  to  guess 
who    this   "a   people"    were.      But   hold;    the 
"  Waldenses"  are  mentioned.     The   Protestants 
in  claiming  the  "  Waldenses"  for  their  religious 
progenitors,  are  able  to  climb  the  tree  of  antiqui- 
ty, only  as  high  as  the  year  1160.     This  alone 
is  fatal   to  the  doctrine  of  both.     But   were  the 
doctrines  of  both  the  same?     So  you  admit  and 
assert.     But  where  is  the  proof?     Did  the  Wal- 
denses deny  free  will,  with  the  Reformers?     Did 
they  hold  that  God  hy  his  hidden  counsels  is  the 
author  of  sin?  I  say  they  did  not.     But  this  is 
not  the  only  difference.     The  Reformers  in  trying 
to  strengthen  their  party  by  the  accession  of  the 
Waldenses,  stipulated  for  certain  changes   in  the 
doctrine  and  practice  of  the  latter  which   shows 
the  difference  between    them.     "  They  were   re- 
quired to   assist*  no   longer   at  mass,    to    abstain 
from  all    the   papal  superstitions,   and   to  reject 
the   ministry   of  the  'Catholic   clergy."     (Hist, 
des   Egl.    Ref.    de    Pierre    Gilles,    c.    v.)     It 
seems   that  your  Protestant  ancestors,  therefore, 
before  the  Reformation,  were  in  the  habit  of  at- 
tending at  mass!     But  besides  they  believed  in 
the  sacraments,  auricular  confession,  absolution, 
in  the  real   presence  and  even  horrible  to  relate, 
transubstantiaton  itself! — except  when  the  priest 
happened  to  be  in  mortal  sin,  and  then,  they  kind- 
ly allowed  any  layman  in  the  state  of  grace,  to 
pronounce  the  words  of  consecration.     When   the 
Reformers,  Bucer  and  (Ecolampadius,  undertook 
to  make  protestants  of  the  Waldenses,  the  latter, 
by  the  proposed  terms  of  union,  were  required  to 
believe   "  1.  That  a  Christian  may  lawfully  give 
evidence  on   oath.     2.  That  auricular  confession 
is    not    commanded.     3.   That   a   Christian  even 
among  Christians  may  lawfully  exercise  the  office 
of  magistrate.     4.  That  a  minister  may  lawfully 
be  possesed  of  property   sufficient  to  support  his 
family.     5.  That  Jesus  Christ  has  ordained  only 
two  sacraments,  Baptism  and   the   Eucharist." 
(Idem,  ibid.) 

These  testimonies,  Rev.  Sir,  show  that  when 
you  wished  to  search  for  the  genealogy  of 
Protestantism  beyond  Luther,  you  have  missed 
your  way,  in  tracing  it  to  the  Waldenses.  But 
they  protested  against  some  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  Rome.  Yes ;  and  so  did  the 
Arians,  Nestorians,  Eutychians,  Pelagians,  Mon- 
tanists,  Manichaeans,  and  their  spiritual  descend- 
ants— the  Albigenses — not  to  name  the  10001 
athor  sects  who  protested  in  the  same  manner. 


30$ 


Here  then,  you  are  fast — and  from  the  dilemma 
not  all  the  ingenuity  of  man  can  extricate  you. 
"Either  the  Protestant  religion  is  a  religion  differ- 
ing from  the  religion  of  Christ,  or  else  the  reli- 
gion of  Christ  was  not  professed  by  any  society  of 
Christians,  previous  to  the  time,  of  Luther.  To 
which  of  these  alternatives  will  you  cling'?  one 
of  them  is  inevitable.''''  Will  any  Protestant  then, 
having  the  least  concern  for  his  soul's  salvation, 
risk  his  eternity,  on  the  chance  of  a  religion  which 
"  no  society  of  Christians,  (either  orthodox  or 
heterodox)  have  ever  professed,  from  the  days 
of  Jesus  Christ  till  the  coming  of  Martin  Luther 
and  John  Calvin'?  I  say  boldly,  that  in  that 
whole  interval,  there  never  existed  such  a  society, 
and  I  challenge  you  to  name  it,  if  there  did. 
Therefore  the  Protestant  religion  is  only  three 
hundred  years  old,  and  consequently  cannot  be 
the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  Now,  Rev.  Sir, 
meet  this  argument  if  you  can.  As  a  clergyman 
you  are  supposed  to  be  acquainted  with  eccle- 
siastical history — and  if  you  can  name  any  socie- 
ty of  Christians  professing  the  doctrines  held  by 
any  sect  of  the  Reformation,  I  hereby  pledge  my- 
self, either  to  prove  that  you  are  mistaken,  or  else 
give  up  the  contest.  But  if  you  cannot,  then, 
from  a  principle  of  conscience,  you,  and  all  Pro- 
testant ministers,  should  cease  to  delude  your- 
selves and  the  people,  by  pretending  that  there 
were  persons,  who  held  your  doctrines  before  the 
Reformation.     Never  ;  in  the  whole  universe  ! 

But,  then,  says  my  Rev.  opporfent,  "  the  Greek 
church  which  yon  own  to  be  an  ancient  church, 
z\so  protests."  This  is  nothing  to  the  purpose — 
I  make  you  a  present  of  the  various  "protests"  of 
all  the  heretics  and  schismatics  of  antiquity,  be- 
ginning with  Ebion  and  Cerinthus,  and  ending 
with  Jerome  of  Prague — and  even  this  cannot  ex- 
tricate your  proposition  from  its  difficulties.  Do 
the  Protestants,  or  any  sect  of  Protestants  agree 
in  doctrines  with  any  society  of  Christians  pre- 
vious to  the  Reformation  ?  This  is  the  question. 
This  is  the  knotty  point.  Let  us  see,  then,  whe- 
ther your  appeal  to  the  Greek  church  can  aid  you. 
The  Greeks  believe  in  seven  sacraments,  in  the 
real  presence,  in  transubstantiation,  the  sacrifice 
of  mass,  prayers  for  the  departed,  and  even  the 
invocation  of  saints.  Wiese  are  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge's Protestants  previous  to  the  Reformation — 
and  no  sooner  has  he  named  them,  than  he  ex- 
claims, "  how  plain  it  is  then,  that  the  Protestant 
religion  was  professed  ages  before  Luther.  It  is 
not  so  plain,  especially  when  we  recollect  that 
the  Greek  church  anathematised  the  heresy  of 
Protestantism  as  decidedly  as  the  Council  of 
Trent.  When  the  patriarch,  Cyril  Lupar,  was 
detected  holding  correspondence  with  the  leaders 
of  the  Reformation  in  Germany  and  Holland,  and 
it  was  ascertained  that,  he  had  imbibed  a  par- 
tiality for  their  novelties,  the  consequence  was, 
that  for  this  he  was  deposed  and  disgraced.  His 
successor  summoned  a  council  of  twenty-three 
bishops,  including  the  patriarchs  of  Jerusalem 
and  Alexandria,  in  which  Cyril  and  his  protestant 
doctrines  were  condemned,  in  language  as  vigor- 
ous as  that  of  Leo  X.     The  same  took  place  in  a 


subsequent  council  of  twenty-five  bishops,  in- 
cluding the  Metropolitan  of  Russia.  Again,  in 
1672,  Dositheus,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  held  a 
third  council  at  Bethlehem,  which  expressly  con- 
demned the  doctrine  of  Cyril  Lupar  and  the  Pro- 
testants. (See  Perpet.  de,  la  Foi  vol.  4.  liv.  8.) 

Thus,  it  is  manifest,  that  whilst  you  acknow- 
ledge the  necessity  of  finding  the  Protestant  reli- 
gion somewhere,  previous  to  Luther,  you  fail  in 
every  attempt.  But  really  it  is  too  amusing  to 
see  a  Protestant  clergyman  point  to  the  Greek 
church,  and  exclaim — look  theie — "  How  plain  it 
is  that  the  Protestant  religion  existed  before  Lu- 
ther ?" — arid  then  with  great  complacency — "  so 
much  for  your  dilemma."  Was  the  Protestant 
religion  professed  by  any  society  of  Christians  before 
Luther  P  If  jt  was,  give  me  the  name  of  that  so- 
ciety— the  name  of  that  precious  society ;  when 
did  it  exist?  where  did  it  dwell?  vho  speaks  of 
it?  the  name  and  the  proof  are  all  I  require.  But 
if  you  will  do  neither,  then  the  matter  is  ended — 
and  Martin  Luther  and  John  Calvin  have  the 
glory  of  being  the  first  men  that  ever  professed  the 
religion  of  Christ.     Can  you  meet  this  argument? 

I  cannot  stop,  Rev.  Sir,  to  expose  in  detail,  the 
twisting  efforts  of  your  letter  to  evade  "the  ques- 
tion," by  embroiling  it  with  doctrines  which  be- 
long exclusivsly  to  the  Catholic  Church.  But 
the  spirit  of  your  writings  may  be  represented  in 
a  little  dialogue  between  us,  in  which  justice 
shall  be  done  to  your  defence  of  the  Protestant 
Religion. 

Catholic.  Good  morning  Mr.  B.  How  do  you 
do? 

Presbyterian.  Good  morning  Sir ; — a  little  fa- 
tigued, from  riding  in  the  stage-coach,  but  still 
able,  by  the  grace  of  God,  to  defend  the  Bible, 
and  the  Protestant  Religion. 

C.  O  dear !  who  has  ventured  to  attack  the 
Bible? 

P.  WThy  you,  Sir;  you  would  have  all  to 
think  alike  in  Religion,  and  "this  is  Deism,  bare-' 
faced  Deism."  (See  commencement  of  Mr.  B's. 
last  letter.) 

C.  But  let  me  explain,  did  not  Christ  in  mak- 
ing a  revelation  require  that  men  should  believe 
it? 

P.  Certainly  ;  but  look  at  your  doctrine  of 
Purgatory  ! 

C.  But  that  is  not  the  question,  if  Christ  re- 
quired men  to  believe  his  revelation,  did  he  not  re- 
quire them  ipso  facto,  to  think  alike  in  religion  ? 
And  is  this  Deism? 

P.  In  vain  have  I  exposed  your  doctrine  of 
Purgatory,  I  can  get  no  reply. 

C.  I  will  reply,  I  assure  you,  when  we  shall 
have  settled  the  present  question.  But  pray  have 
I  written  against  the  Bible  ? 

P.  You  have  written  against  the  Protestant 
Religion,  which  is  the  same  thing.  We  take  the 
Bible  alone.  Surely  God  can  speak  plainly  in 
his  written  word.  And  then,  transubstantiation 
is  as  young  as  the  year  1215.  Indulgences  are 
a  bundle  of  licences  to  sin.  (See  Doctor  Clag- 
got.) 

C.  But  if  the  Bible  alone  be  the  rule  of  faith, 


303 


and  God  speak  plainly  in  his  word,  how  is  it  that 
Protestants  are  divided  into  as  many  systems 
as  there  are  sects;  and  opinions,  as  there  are 
heads? 

P.  So  then,  you  would  have  all  men  to  think 
alike!  "  Deism,  barefaced  Deism."  And  then, 
look  at  your  persecutions  of  Heretics,  by  the  in- 
fallible Popes,  and  the  doctrine  of  human  merits 
derogatory  to  the  merits  of  Christ;  and  the 
church  setting  herself  up  above  the  word  of  God. 

C.  All  this  is  irrelevant,  it  seems  to  me,  and 
does  not  belong  to  the  question.  Why  are  Pro- 
testants so  divided  if  they  are  taught  by  the  Bi- 
ble? besides  the  Bible  alone,  is  the  Bible  on  the 
shelf. 

P.  Profound  logic!  My  God,  my  Bible  and 
my  mind  are  supposed  in  my  rule  of  faith. 

C.  But  according  to  this,  the  mind  is  the  in- 
strument of  interpretation,  acting  on  the  Bible, 
and,  as  every  man's  mind  is  different  from  that 
of  his  neighbour,  so  there  must  be  those  differ- 
ent interpretations  by  which  Protestantism  is  di- 
vided.    Does  the  Bible  contain  them  all? 

P.  Will  you  say,  then,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
cannot  speak  plainly  in  the  written  word  of  God? 
"  Poor  Bible,  what  a  transgressor  thou  hast 
been!"  And  look  at  your  own  rule  of  faith,  De- 
crees of  Councils,  Bulls  of  Popes,  Apochryphal 
Books,  Consent  of  the  Fathers,  through  all  those 
immense  folios  you  have  to  wade  before  you  can 
tell  what  is  your  rule  of  faith. 

C.  Excuse  me  Sir;  my  rule  is  much  more  sim- 
ple. "I  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church." 
This  is  my  rule.  I  agree  in  belief,  by  this  rule, 
with  all  the  millions  of  Catholics  that  live,  or 
have  lived,  from  the  days  of  Christ ;  and  am  se- 
perated  by  it  from  all  the  heresies  of  modern  as 
well  as  ancient  times.  Whereas  your  Protestant" 
rule  introduces  heresies,  as  for  example,  Univer- 
salism,  and  Unitarianism,  and  leaves  you  unable 
to  refute  them.  What  do  you  say  to  this  ? 
.  P.  In  vain  have  I  called  on  you  to  defend  your 
doctrines.  I  have  proved  that  Transubstantia- 
tion  is  as  young  as  1215,  that  Purgatory  is  an  in- 
vention of  men,  and  that  Masses  are  a  way  for 
the  Priests  to  get  money.  (See  Epiphanius.) 
To  all  these  proofs,  not  a  word.  But  you  charge 
on  the  Protestant  rule,  the  errors  of  extreme  here- 
sies. The  Bible  is  the  rule.  Interpretation  is 
the  use  of  the  rule.  If  men  "abuse  it,"  that  is 
not  the  rule.  Are  we  ever  to  pass  from  this 
question  ? 

C.  I  am  happy,  my  dear  Sir,  to  perceive  that 
at  length  you  have  acknowledged  private  inter- 
pretation, as  an  "  abuse."  You  are  almost — on 
this  point,  altogether — a  Catholic.  We  may  now 
pass  to  the  second  topic,  having  closed  this  one, 
by  your  unexpected  declaration. 

P.  "  Unexpected  '."  Strange  language  this  ! 
After  five  months  discussion,  you  admit  then, 
that  you  have  evaded  the  real  Protestant 
rule,  the  Bible,  and  argued  against  its  "  abuses 
alone."  And  to  this,  day  you  have  not  told  us 
what  your  own  "rule  of  faith"  is.  But  I  shall 
proceed  to  the  second  question.  From  the  lan- 
guage of  Romanists  themselves,  it  is  clear  that 


a  great  many  immoralities  and  iniquities  were 
committed,  and  this  among  the  clergy  as  well  as 
laity  of  the  church.  (See  letter  from  the  three 
Bishops  at  Bononia.)  Therefore  a  Reformation 
was  necessary. 

C.  As  you  have  confirmed  your  first  admission, 
of  private  interpretation's  being  the  "  abuse"  of 
the  Bible  ;  I  now  follow  you  to  the  second  ques- 
tion. The  Catholics,  indeed,  desired  a  reforma- 
tion ;  but  it  was  of  morals,  and  not  of  doctrine. 
They  held  that  the  doctrine  of  the  church  was 
pure  and  holy,  but  that  men  had  departed  from 
its  sanctity  by  the  wickedness  of  their  lives. 
But  pray  what  is  "the  Protestant  Religion?" 

P.  "  The  Religion  of  the  Reformation."  And 
here  I  stand  ready  to  prove  that  it  is  the  Religion 
of  Christ. 

C.  Of  course  then,  it  comprises  the  whole  fa- 
mily of  sects,  of  which  the  Reformation  was  the 
parent  ?     Are  they  all  the  Religion  of  Christ? 

P.  You  have  not  answered  my  arguments 
against  transubstantiation  and  the  other  doctrines 
of  your  system.  And  now  I  shall  show,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  that  your  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation is  not  the  Bible,  and  that  if  it  be  true 
Christianity  may  be  false,  since  it  invades  the 
testimony  of  our  senses.  (See  Scotus  and  Bellar- 
mine.) 

C.  ,But  stay,  my  dear  friend  the  question  is  of 
another  subject.  And  in  order  that  we  may  reach 
it  at  once,  let  us  admit  that  every  doctrine  rejected 
by  the  Reformers  was  erroneous.  Let  that  be  con- 
sidered as  granted,  and  now  show  me  that  "  the 
Protestant  religion  is  the  religion  of  Christ." 

P.  Ah!  sir,  I  see  through  your  Jesuit  policy. 
You  wish  me  to  show  that  the  Protestant  religion 
is  the  religion  of  Christ.  But  as  I  have  begun,  so 
I  shall  continue  to  expose  your  system.  And  as  in 
my  last  I  showed  that  transubstantiation  was 
promoted  into  a  doctrine,  A.  D.  1215.  So,  now 
I  shall  prove  that  is  absurd  to  say  that  a  priest 
can  make  his  God  and  eat  him.  (See  Cicero,  and 
Averroes  the  Arabian  philosopher.)  Besides  the 
doctrine  of  intentions,  and  masses  in  honour  of  the 
saints. 

C.  But  this  is  not  the  question.  Was  there 
ever  any  society  previous  to  Luther  professing 
the  doctrines  of  any  sect  of  Protestantism? 

P.  Yes  :  the  Centuriators  of  Magdeburg,  speak 
of  "  a  people,"  who  did  not  agree  with  the  Catho- 
lic church.  And  again  look  at  the  Waldenses 
and  the  Greek  church  which  you  admit  to  be  an 
ancient  church. 

C.  And  as  to  the  Reformers,  is  it  clear,  that  they 
were  the  men  whom  God  would  have  selected  to 
reform  his  church? 

P.  Why  have  ycu  clipped  their  doctrine  and 
character  by  your  broken  extracts.  But  look  at 
your  Popes,  Sergius  and  Formosus,  were  they 
better  than  the  Reformers? 

C.  Indeed  it  seems  not.  But  the  Reformers 
were  religion-makers,  by  profession,  whereas  the 
Popes  could  change  nothing  of  Catholic  doctrine; 
however  much  they  might  degrade  their  station 
by  personal  vices.  And  besides  if  you  meant  to 
compliment  the  Reformers,  the  worst  of  our  Popes 


304 


should   not  have   been  selected   for  the  compa- 
rison. 

P.  But  look  at  the  Popes,  called  by  your  own 

historian  Apostate  rather  than  apostolical 

And  then  your  doctrines  of  intentions,  &c. 

It  is  useless,  Rev.  Sir,  to  prosecute  the  dialogue. 
It  shows  the  spirit  and  the  manner  of  your  pen. 
You  have  confused  the  questions,  by  the  intro- 
duction of  extraneous  matter,  as  if  the  hope  of 
your  cause,  depended  on  the  jumble  of  topics  and 
the  mystification  of  argument.  In  all  this,  however, 
there  is  no  merit  of  originality.  It  has  been  the 
custom  of  all  your  predecessors. 

Zanchius,  one  of  the  reformers,  describes  the 
controversial  spirit  of  his  reforming  colleagues, 
in  the  following  candid  language.  "lam  indignant, 
says  he  "  when  I  consider  the  manner  in  which 
most  of  us  defend  our  cause.  The  true  state  of 
the  question  we  often,  on  set  purpose  involve  in 
darkness,  that  it  may  not  be  understood  :  we  have 
the  impudence  to  deny  things  the  most  evident : 
we  assert  what  is  visibly  false:  the  most  impious 
doctrines  we  force  on  the  people  as  the  first  prin- 
ciples of  faith,  and  orthodox  opinions  we  con- 
demn as  heretical :  we  torture  the  Scriptures  till 
they  agree  with  our  own  fancies;  and  boast 
of  being  the  disciples  of  the  fathers,  while  we  re- 
fuse to  follow  their  doctrine:  to  deceive,  to  calum- 
niate, to  abuse,  is  our  familiar  practice :  nor  do  we 
care  for  any  thing,  provided  we  can  defend  our 
cause,  good  or  bad,  right  or  wrong.  O !  what 
times  what  manners."  (Zanch.  Ad.  Storm.  T. 
vii.  Col.  828.)  But  if  possible,  let  us  come  again 
to  the  point.  Answer  me  the  following  questions, 
and  they  will  decide  the  matter.  They  are  sup- 
ported by  the  reasoning  and  authorities  of  my  last 
letter,  to  which  I  refer  the  reader. 

1st  Question.  Did  there  exist  previous  to  the 
Reformation,  a  society  of  Christians,  in  any  part 
of  the  world,  professing  the  doctrines  of  any  sect 
of  Protestantism]  Prove  that  there  did  and  I 
give  up  the  argument.  But  if  there  did  not,  then, 
Protestantism  is  any  thing  but  the  religion  of 
Christ.     Solve  this,  will  you  I 

2d  Question.  Reviewing  the  doctrines  and 
character  of  the  Reformers,  as  stated  in  my  last 
letter,  from  their  own  writings;  viewing  the  con- 
sequences of  the  Reformation  on  the  morals  of 
the  people  ;  is  there  any,  the  smallest  evidence 
that  the  Spirit  of  God,  had  aught  to  do  with  it] 
If  it  had,  then  please  to  account  for  the  manner 
in  which  they  spoke  and  wrote  of  each  other. 

3d.  "  Does  the  Religion  of  Christ  teach  the 
doctrines  of  Protestantism,  from  the  highest 
point  of  Episcopalianism,  down  the  descending 
scale  to  the  farthest  verge  of  Unitarianism !  If 
not,  the  Protestant  Religion  is  not  the  Religion 
of  Christ."    For  all  these  belong  to  Protestantism. 

But  in  answer  to  this  it  seems  that  "  Unita- 
rians, Universalists,  &c,"  are  not  Protestants. 
But  why  not  ]  Have  they  not  their  "  God,  their 
Bible,  and  their  mind,"  as  well  as  Presbyterians. 
Have  they  not  "  honesty  and  common  sense"  to 
interpret  the  Scriptures ;  >and  what  more  is  re- 
quisite according  to  your  own  showing  ]  Please 
then,  Rev.  Sir,  to  tell  me  what  denominations 


are  to  be  considered  "  Protestants ;"  for  if  Dr. 
Channing  and  the  faculty  of  Cambridge,  be 
not  entitled  to  the  appellation,  I  am  at  a  loss 
to  know  who  are.  Are  the  Friends  Protestants. 
The  Shakers,  Swedenborgians,  Baptists,  are 
they  Protestants]  In  a  word,  tell  em  what  deno- 
minations constitute  what  you  understand  by 
"  the  Protestant  religion."  It  is  not  for  me  to 
determine,  among  such  learned  people,  which 
denomination  is  right  and  which  is  wrong. 
Show  me  the  boundaries  of  the  Protestant  reli- 
gion," and  I  shall  not  transgress  them.  Narrow 
your  definition  to  whatever  limits  you  please — • 
and  then  prove  that  the  religion  professed  by 
those  whom  it  encloses,  and  the  religion  of 
Christ  are  the  same  thing.  If  you  will  not  do 
this,  you  had  better  give  it  up. 

4.  "  Had  the  Reformers  themselves,  and  if  not, 
could  they  transmit  to  their  successors  any  min- 
isterial authority  ]"  To  this  you  give  answer 
"  that  whatever  authority  our  church  possessed 
in  this  way  was  imparted  to  them."  But  our 
church  recalled  this  authority,  in  their  suspension 
and  excommunication,  and  a  new  supply  was  ne- 
cessary. Whence  was  it  derived  ]  And  if  not 
derived  at  all,  it  follows  on  your  own  admission, 
that  the  protestant  clergy  differ  from  the  laity 
only  in  the  colour  of  their  dress  and  the  diversity 
of  their  occupation.  Will  you  clear  up  this 
point]     Can  you  do  it  ] 

When  you  insinuate  that  I  have  misquoted  the 
Reformers,  you  should  be  prepared  to  sustain  the 
charge.  Your  lengthened  quotation  from  Luther 
does  not  alter  the  sense  of  mine,  which  was  to 
show  that  he  denied  free  will  in  man,  denied  the 
possibility  of  keeping  the  commandments,  or  of 
doing  good  works.  But  his  own  writings  indicate 
his  doctrine  much  more  correctly  than  any  com- 
mentary of  those  who,  ashamed  of  it,  would  ac- 
cuse me  of  perverting  his  meaning.  "  A  person, 
says  he,  that  is  baptised  cannot  though  he  would, 
lose  his  salvation  by  any  sins  how  grevious 
soever,  unless  he  refuses  to  believe.  For  no  sins 
can  damn  him,  but  unbelief  alone."  (Cap.  Bab. 
Tom.  2.  fol.  74.  1.) 

Again  "  the  Papists  teach,  that  faith  in  Christ 
justifies  indeed,  but  that  God's  commandments 
are  likeivise  to  be  kept.  Now  this  is  directly  to 
deny  Christ,  and  abolish  faith."  (Tom.  5.  Witt, 
ed.  fol  311.) 

Is  this  passage  designed  to  recommend  good 
works  ]  It  requires  greater  penetration  than  I  am 
possessed  of,  to  discover  any  such  meaning,  either 
in  this  or  the  passage  quoted  at  the  close  of  your 
last  letter.  Now  Rev.  Sir,  be  pleased  to  meet  the 
arguments  and  authorities  of  this,  and  my  last 
paper  on  the  question  of  "  the  Protestant  reli- 
gion." In  this  it  is  made  clear  that  your  attempts 
to  derive  the  Protestant  religion  from  Christ  by  the 
channel  of  the  Waldenses'and  the  Greek  Church  is 
as  unprofitable  to  you,  as  it  is  amusing  to  the  reader. 
Another  effort,  however  may  be  more  successful, 
and  we  shall  wait  patiently  to  see  what  your 
next  pen  will  bring  to  light. 

Yours,  &c. 

John  Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY N°.  26. 


Is  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  July  26th,  1833.      |  and   call    aloud    for   answer,  where    is    the    true 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes,  i  rule  1      What   is   the   true   rule  1      Why  do  you 

Rev.  Sir, — Busaeus,  the  Jesuit,  gives  this  sage  |  withhold  it] 
counsel  to  his  disciples,  "  avoid,  if  you  can,  con-  As  you  lay  so  much  stress  on  private  inter- 
troversy  with  an  heretic  on  the  articles  of  faith  /"  '  pretation,  it  may  be  well  briefly  to  say  something  of 
This  wily  apothegm  has  been  the  pole  star  c»f  all  your  system  on  this  subject.  And  here  let  me 
your  discussions.  On  the  first  great  question,  present  the  memorable  admission,  unconsciously 
the  rule  of  faith,  after  all  your  promises,  you  did  made,  in  your  last  letter  by  which  all  my  charges 
never  once  define  the  Roman  Catholic  rule  of ,  of  Deism  are  fairly  confirmed.  "You  say  'the 
faith ;  and  even  now  the  public  know  not  (by  |  Bible  is  the  rule  ;  and  common-sense  interpreta- 
any  thing  you  have  said,)  what  your  rule  is,  ex-  i  tion  the  way  to  find  the  sense  of  the  rule.'  Your 
cept  that  it  is  not  the  Bible  ;  and  not  the  Protes-  I  common-sense  interpretation  tells  you,  that  tran- 


tant  rule  of  faith.  You  began  the  controversy 
by  requiring  me  to  prove  the  canonical  authority 
of  the  Bible.  This  was  taken  for  granted,  in  the 
very  terms  of  our  debate ;  and  it  was  puerile, 
deistical,  and  foreign  to  the  question  for  you  to 
insist  on  such  a  course.  Yet  I  followed  you 
again  and  again  over  the  ten  heads  .•  and  when 
they  wax  so  frail  and  so  weary  that  they  die 
away,  lo,  you  charge  me  with  giving  up  our  rule 
of  faith,  because  I  still  insist  that  the  Bible  is  our 
only  rule.  As  if  conscious  of  the  very  defence- 
less condition  in  which  you  left  your  rule,  you 
continue  to  revert  to  the  subject  from  letter  to 
letter.  Now  if  you  are  afraid  to  go  forward  with 
the  present  question,  I  will  still  meet  you  on  your 
rule  of  faith,  and  give  you  an  opportunity  to  defend 
your  neglected  friends  "  Unwritten  Traditions," 
"  the  Apochryphal  Books,"  and  "  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Fathers."  Without  this  it  is 
useless  farther  to  notice  your  clamour  on  this 
subject.  What  takes  away  all  apology  from  you 
is  this,  that  you  have  admitted  the  Bible  to  be  a 
rule;  but  you  deny  that  the  Bible  alone  is  a  suffi- 
cient rule.  Even  the  vilest  heretics  have,  as  you 
allow,  been  so  far  respectful  towards  revelation, 
as  to  receive  it  as  the  true  and  sufficient  rule  of 
faith.  But  to  the  church  of  Rome  belongs  the 
disastrous  distinction  of  refusing  to  the  word  of 
God  its  proper  rank  as  our  exclusive  and  infalli- 
ble guide  in  matters  of  religion.  You  have, 
however,  admitted  that  it  is  a  rule.  Here,  then, 
we  agree.-  but  we  differ  in  this,  that  you  would 
add  something  to  it  to  make  it  perfect.  Surely, 
then,  the  duty  lay  on  you  to  exhibit  and  to  prove 
what  that  something  is  without  which  the  rule  is 
not  complete.  We  well  know  what  that  some- 
thing is,  but  I  have  striven  without  effect  to  bring 
you  out  in  the  defence  of  it.  In  vain  then  do 
you  insist  that  I  have  given  up  the  Protestant 
rule,  when  I  aver  that  the  Bible  is  that  rule,  and 
that  private  interpretation  is  only  the  method  of 
its  use.  But  supposing  the  Protestant  rule  to  be 
abandoned,  the  questions  still  return  upon  you, 


substantiation  is  absurd  and  impossible ;  anoth- 
er's '  common-sense  interpretation,'  tells  him  that 
the  incarnation  and  the  deity  of  Christ  are  absurd 
and  impossible ;  a  third  man's  '  common-sense 
interpretation,'  tells  him  that  the  book  itself  is  a 
book  of  contradiction,  as  plainly  appears  by  the 
contradictory  '  common-sense  interpretations,' 
which  Protestants  give  of  it,  and  that,  therefore, 
revelation  is  absurd  and  impossible."  Now  is 
not  this  to  say  that  to  "  common-sense"  the 
Bible  has  no  meaning  1  We  as  Protestants  hold 
that  men  may  err  and  do  err  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  Bible,  as  of  other  books  :  but  that  like 
other  books  it  has  a  meaning,  which  is  to  be 
reached,  as  the  meaning  of  other  books  is  reached. 
But  you  allow  that  "  common-sense"  may  teach 
any  thing  from  the  Bible  ;  and  may  from  the 
Bible  prove  the  Bible  false  !  How  strange  that 
you  by  private  interpretation  insist  so  zealously 
for  the  fixed  and  clear  meaning  of  Bellarmine, 
and  yet  thus  treat  the  holy  book  of  God  ! 

With  all  the  claims  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to 
be  the  exclusive  and  infallible  interpreter  of  the 
word  of  God,  there  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  cir- 
cle of  human  productions  such  crude,  silly,  and 
profane  commentaries  as  those  given  by  the  Ro- 
man oracle.  They  have  been  for  ages  the  alter- 
nate sport  and  wonder  of  the  world.  I  will  give 
a  specimen,  which  may  at  once  inform  and  amuse 
the  reader. 

In  the  Decretals  of  Pope  Gregory  the  9th  is  the 
following  commentary  on  Genesis  I,  16:  "Pope 
Clement  the  3d  to  the  most  illustrious  Emperor 
of  Constantinople,  c.  6.  Besides  you  ought  also 
to  have  known  that  God  made  two  great  lights 
in  the  firmament  of  heaven,  the  greater  light  to 
rule  the  day  and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night; 
each  of  them  great,  but  one  the  greater  of  the  two. 
For  the  firmament  of  heaven,  therefore,  viz.  the 
universal  church,  God  made  two  great  lights,  that 
is  he  appointed  two  dignities,  which  are  the  Ponti- 
fical authority,  and  the  kingly  power.  But  that 
which  rules  the  day,  that  is  to  say,  the  spiritual,  is 


206 


the  greater,  and  that  which  rules  the  carnal,  the 
less;  so  that  the  same  difference  may  be  discern- 
ed between  the  Popes,  and  the  kings  as  between 
the  sun  and  the  moonV  Then  follows  this  in- 
fallible and  learned  gloss!  "Since,  therefore,  the 
earth  is  seven  times  greater  than  the  moon,  and 
the  sun  is  eight  times  greater  than  the  earth,  there- 
fore the  Pontifical  dignity  is  forty-seven  times 
greater  than  the  regal  dignity."  After  such  arith- 
metical skill,  such  reach  of  astronomic  science, 
such  a  profound  and  perfect  commentary  on  the 
size  and  significations  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  fir- 
mament, can  any  man  wonder  at  Mr.  Hughes's 
devotion  to  the  interpretation  of  the  holy  see;  or 
dispute  the  propriety  of  Gallileo's  imprisonment 
by  the  Pope,  because  he  held  that  the  earth  was 
circular,  and  moved  around  the  sun  ? 

Again  as  if  to  reduce  this  subject  to  the  last 
absurdity,  the  church  of  Rome  have  a  Standing 
Committee,  to  regulate  and  announce  the  legi- 
timate meaning  of  the  decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Trent.  The  difficulty  of  the  case  is  this. 
The  decrees  were  to  be  interpreted  after  they 
were  published.  Who  was  to  do  if?  Not  the 
Council  and  Pope  united,  which  (you  say)  are 
necessary  to  constitute  infallibility;  for  the  Coun- 
cil was  then  dissolved,  and  near  three  centuries 
have  passed,  and  no  other  has  met.  The  Pope, 
you  say,  is  not  infallible;  nor  is  any  individual 
Priest?  Who  then  shall  interpret]  The  best 
approach  to  it  is  the  standing  Committee  at  Rome, 
headed  by  the  Pope,  and  appointed  by  the  Coun- 
cil to  interpret  its  decrees.  It  still  exists  and  sits 
statedly  at  Rome.  A  collection  of  its  '■'•sentences" 
has  recently  been  published  in  eight  vols,  quarto 
by  D.  Zamboni.  Now,  query,  are  its  interpretations 
fallible  or  infallible'?  They  are  not  infallible,  for 
you  have  distinctly  told  us  that  none  but  a  Gene- 
ral Council  confirmed  by  a  Pope  can  decree  or 
interpret  infallibly.  But  this  committee  is  not  a 
General  Council ;  therefore  its  decisions  are  fal- 
lible. Yet  they  are  binding.  Here  then  is  pri- 
vate interpretation,  {the  radical  delusion  of  Pro- 
testantism) in  the  last  resort,  and  after  all  the 
outcry  against  i*,  adopted  and,  used  by  the  church  of 
Rome  J  Then  fallible  interpretation  is,  and  has 
been,  the  exclusive  guide  of  your  church  since  the 
Council  of  Trent,  that  is,  for  two  hundred  and  se- 
venty years ;  and  still  worse,  this  has  always 
been  its  guide,  except  during  the  sessions  of  the 
Councils,  and  as  soon  as  they  rise,  their  decrees, 
like  the  Bible,  pass  over  to  the  "  radical  delusion 
of  Protestantism,  viz.  to  fallible  interpretation. 

I  said  that  you  were  true  to  the  maxim  of  Busaeus, 
to  avoid  controversy  on  the  articles  of  faith.  If  you 
did  it  much  on  the  rule  of  faith,  you  do  it  more  on 
the  second  question,  now  before  us.  In  it,  as  in 
the  other  question,  there  are  some  points  on  which 
we  are  agreed.  These  of  course,  we  are  not  cal- 
led to  discuss.  There  are  other  points  in  which 
we  differ.  Against  these  I  protest.  To  these  1 
have  directed  my  first  attention.  I  have  already 
enumerated  them,  and  exposed  your  errors,  on  a 
number  of  them.  This  I  have  done  by  right,  and 
in  order.  But  though  you  still  shrink  from  the  dis- 
cussion of  them,  on  them  the  question  turns  ;  and 


to  them  you  must  come,  or  your  own  church  will 
exclaim  that  you  have  betrayed  her  interests. 
Why  is  it  that  you  decline  such  a  course  ?  When 
you  refused  (in  settling  the  terms  of  the  contro- 
versy) to  discuss  this  question,  Is  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  the  religion  of  Christ  ?  did  you 
mean  to  keep  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  entire- 
ly out  of  view  ?  Was  that  your  design  when  you 
accepted  the  present  form  of  the  question  and  re- 
fused the  other?  When  it  became  my  privilege 
to  introduce  the  2d  question,  and  when  you  called 
on  me  to  define  the  Protestant  religion,  did  you 
imagine  that  your  religion  would  be  left  untouch- 
ed, and  that  I  would  allow  the  very  end  for 
which  I  engaged  with  you,  to  be  frustrated  by 
a  Jesuit's  arts  ?  If  you  did,  you  will  now  find  that 
such  adroitness  will  not  avail.  If  you  did  not, 
you  will  expect  me  to  pursue  the  plan  of  argu- 
ment already  begun,  and  with  some  efficacy,  if 
we  may  judge  from  your  strong  dissatisfaction. 

I.  In  the  order  of  discussion  for  the  present  let- 
ter, I  proceed  to  expose  Extreme  Unction  as  a  dar- 
ing invention  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  is  not 
a  sacrament  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  a  novelty  in  the  church, 
and  ruinous  to  the  souls  of  men.     The  decrees  of 
the  Council  of  Trent  are  to  this  effect.    (Session 
14.  Chap.  1.  Coun.  Trent.)     "This  sacred  unc- 
tion of  the  sick  was  instituted,  as  it  were,  a  true 
and  proper  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament  by 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  hinted  at,,  indeed,  by  Mark, 
but  recommended  and  preached  to  the  faithful  by 
the  Apostle  James,  brother  of  our  Lord.     '  Is  any 
man,'  saith  he,  '  sick  among  you  ?    Let  him  bring 
in  the  Priests  of  the  church,  and  let  them  pray 
over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  ;   and  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the 
sick  man;  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up;  and  if 
he  be  in  sins  they  shall  be  forgiven  him.'  James 
v.  14.  15.     Chap.  2d.  "  The  power  and  effect  of 
this  sacrament  are  explained  in  the  words,  '  the 
prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick  man ;  and  the 
Lord  shall  raise  him  up;  and  if  he  be  in  sins  they 
shall  be  forgiven  him.'     For  this  power  is  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  whose  unction  cleanses 
away  sins,  if  any  remain  to  be  expiated,  even  the 
last  traces  of  sin."     "  And  he  sometimes  obtains 
the  restoration  of  his  bodily  health,  if  the  same 
shall  further  the  salvation  of  his  so;*/."     Canon  I. 
"If  any  shall  say  Extreme  Unction  is  not  truly  and 
properly  a  sacrament  instituted  by  Christ  our  Lord, 
and  preached  by  the  Apostle  St.  James;  but  that 
it  is  a  human  invention. — Let  him  be  accursed." 
Canon  II.  "  If  any  shall  say,  that  the  holy  anoint- 
ing of  the  sick  doth  not  confer  grace,  nor  remit 
si?is,  nor  relieve  the  sick ;   but  that  it  hath  long 
since  ceased,  as  if  the  grace  of  healing  existed 
only  of  old — Let  him  be  accursed." 

Having  explicitly  stated  the  doctrine  of  your 
church  on  this  subject,  I  now  assert:  1.  That 
Extreme  Unction  is  not  a  sacrament  of  Jesus  Christ, 
but  a  daring  innovation  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

Dr.  Challoner,  (a  standard  writer  in  your 
church)  in  his  ^Catholic  Christian,"  pp.  3,  4,  thus 
defines  a  Sacrament.  Question.  "  What  are  the 
necessary  conditions  for  a  thing  to  be  a  Sacrament? 
Answer,  1st.  It  must  be  a  sacred,  visible  or  sen- 


S07 


sible  sign.  2d.  This  sacred  sign  must  have  a 
power  annexed  to  it  of  communicating  grace  to 
the  soul.  3d.  This  must  be  by  virtue  of  the  in- 
stitution of  Christ."  And  he  adduces  the  very 
words  of  Christ  for  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  Baptism.  Now  will  any  candid 
reader  take  up  the  only  two  passages  of  the  word 
of  God,  referred  to  for  authority,  and  say  that  there 
is  the  least  foundation  for  a  Christian  Sacrament1? 
In  Mark  vi.  13.  it  is  written,  "  And  they  (the 
twelve  Disciples)  cast  out  many  devils,  and  an- 
nointed  with  oil  many  that  were  sick  and  healed 
them."  Here  was,  plainly,  a  miracle  by  the  use 
of  oil.  But  it  was  to  heal  the  sick,  not  to  anoint 
them  for  death:  and  was  no  Sacrament.  Christ 
was  not  present  to  institute  it  a  Sacrament ;  the 
Apostles  had  no  authority  to  do  it ;  and  not  a 
word  is  said  about  a  Sacrament.  Indeed  the 
Council  of  Trent  seemed  fully  aware  of  this,  for 
they  say  in  the  decree,  "  Being  first  hinted  at  by 
Mark  vi.  13 ;"  and  "  as  it  were  instituted."  Is 
not  the  very  language  expressive  of  the  con- 
sciousness of"  fraud,  and  of  the  absence  of  autho- 
rity ]  Is  this  the  Religion  of  Christ?  Is  this 
your  holy  and  infallible  church'?  The  other  pas- 
sage from  (James  v.  14-15.)  quoted  above,  is 
equally  silent  about  the  institution  of  a  Sacra- 
ment. The  unction  referred  to,  was  for  the  heal- 
*mg  of  the  sick,-  the  effect  was  peculiar  to  the 
days  of  miracles;  and  the  whole  intention,  di- 
rectly opposed  to  your  decree  on  this  subject,  by 
which  you  make  it  extreme  unction,  or  "  the  Sa- 
crament of  the  dying."  Now,  the  decree  ac- 
knowledges that  James  did  not  institute,  (as  none 
but  Christ  could,)  a  Sacrament,  in  this  unction  : 
but  that  he  only  "  recommended,  and  published 
it.'1'1  The  same  decree  also  owns,  that  in  Mark 
vi.  13,  it  was  not  instituted  but  only  "hinted  at." 
It  results  then  that  Christ  did  not  institute  it, 
therefore,  it  is  not  a  Sacrament.  And  yet,  -your 
infallible  church,  gravely  tells  us,  that  the  re- 
commendation, by  an  Apostle,  of  a  thing  which 
never  existed,  gives  it  existence ,-  and  that  a  hint  in 
one  place,  and  an  allusion  in  the  other,  are  suffi- 
cient authority,  for  a  Christian  Sacrament.  Who 
then,  instituted  this  Sacrament1?  the  Church  of 
Rome  ;  and  the  act  by  which  she  performed  it, 
is  a  rebellious  innovation.  The  Rhemish  transla- 
tors, in  their  notes  on  Mark  vi.  13,  confess  that 
Christ  did  not  institute  it,  when  they  say  "  It 
was  a  preparative  to  the  Sacrament  of  Extreme 
Unction  ;"  and  they  refer  us  to  its  completion,  in 
James  v.  14-15. 

2.  We  next  notice  an  insuperable  dilemma,  into 
which  you  are  brought  by  this  pretended  Sacra- 
ment. The  Council  of  Trent  says,  (session  22d, 
c.  1.)  "  that  it  was  not  tiir  the  last  supper  that 
our  Lord  ordained  the  Apostles  to  be  Priests  of 
the  New  Testament."  But  the  same  Council 
decreed  (Sess.  14.  c.  3.)  "that  Bishops  or  Priests 
properly  ordained  by  them,  are  the  proper  min- 
isters of  the  sacrament  of  extreme  unction." 
Then  the  Apostles  were  not  Priests  when  they 
applied  unction  to  the  sick,  Mark  vi.  13.;  and  of 
course,  it  was  no  sacrament.  Therefore,  the  coun- 
cil has  erred.     But  if  you  say  they  were  Priests, 


then  the  Council  still  ha3  erred,  for  it  says  they 
were  not  Priests  till  the  last  supper.  So  that 
either  way  the  church  has  erred.  Is  this  your 
infallible  church,  which  cannot  err  in  an  ar- 
ticle of  faith  1  Does  not  the  Council  curse  all 
who  reject  it,  (Canon  1.  Sess.  7.)  "  Whosoever 
shall  affirm  that  the  sacraments  of  the  new  law 
were  not  all  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord, 
or  that  they  are  more  or  fewer  than  seven,  name- 
ly, Baptism,  Confirmation,  the  Eucharist,  Pen- 
ance, Extreme  Unction,  Orders,  and  Matrimony, 
or  that  any  of  these  is  not  truly  and  properly  a 
sacrament:  let  him  be  accursed."  How  strange, 
does  this  profane  anathema  appear  in  contrast 
with  the  declarations  of  Augustin,  "  that  the 
Doctors  of  this  (6th)  age,  acknowledge  only  two 
Sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper." 
Duo  tantuin  Sacramenta  theologi  hujus  aetatis 
agnoscunt. 

3.  This  pretended  Sacrament  and  Purgatory,  can- 
not, on  your  own  principles,  subsist  together.  The  de- 
cree, as  quoted  above,  declares,  "  that  the  power 
of  this  Sacrament  is  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whose  unction  cleanses  away  sins,  if  any  remain 
to  be  expiated,  even  the  last  traces  of  sin ;"  and 
also,  "  that  Christ  has  fortified  the  close  of  our 
existence  with  the  Sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction, 
as  with  a  most  secure  defence."  The  Catechism 
of  the  Church,  also  stales  the  same,  at  large;  and 
tells  us  that  "  while  penance  is  for  the  remission 
of  mortal  sins,  the  grace  of  this  Sacrament  remits 
venial  sins;  and  is  not  to  be  administered  until  the 
penitent  has  confessed  and  has  received"  («.  e. 
the  Eucharist.)  But  Purgatory,  as  we  showed 
in  Letter  No.  24,  is  for  the  cleansing  away  of  just 
such  sins  as  these;  as,  for  example,  "from  that 
part  of  the  church  which  is  in  Purgatory,"  (Bel- 
larmine.)  Now  if  Extreme  Unction  does  the 
work  at  death,  what  need  of  Purgatory1?  Why 
atone  over  and  over  again;  1.  by  the  blood  of 
Christ;  2.  by  Extreme  Unction  ;  then  3.  by  Pur- 
gatory] Hence  to  say  Masses  for  those  who 
have  died  under  Extreme  Unction,  may  make 
money  for  the  Priests,  but  is  deceiving  the  people. 
And  if  it  be  to  make  it  more  certain,  then  is  not 
Extreme  Unction  an  uncertain  thing,  and  useless? 
Do  they  not  destroy  each  other  1 

4.  "  But  there  is  a  greater  cheat  than  this  in 
the  doctrine  of  Extreme  Unction.  Such,  it  is  pre- 
tended, are  the  intention,  efficacy,  and  virtues  of 
this  rite  that,  if  it  be  necessary  to  the  salvation  of 
the  person  who  is  anointed,  that  he  should  recov- 
er, he  will;  but  if  this  be  not  necessary,  he  will 
not.  Hence  it  follows:  1.  That  if  the  person 
recovers,  he  was  in  a  state  of  damnation,  after  he 
was  anointed.  2.  That  if  he  does  not  recover, 
he  died  in  a  state  of  salvation.  Therefore,  no- 
body was  ever  damned  that  was  anointed  at  the 
hour  of  his  death.  Therefore,  also,  nobody  that 
recovers  had  benefited  by  any  Sacrament  he  re- 
ceived before  the  unction ;  otherwise  he  would 
not  have  been  in  state  of  damnation.  Upon  the 
whole  then,  it  is  plain,  as  this  Sacrament,  like  the 
rest,  is  said  to  operate,  (ex  opere  operato,  by  its 
own  power,)  whoever  has  a  mind  never  to  die,  needs 
only  be  in  a  state  of  damnation  whence  is  anointed" 


30  8 


5.  One  of  the  awful  features  of  this  invention 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  is,  that  it  encourages  de- 
lay of  repentance  till  the  hour  of  death,  and  holds 
out  at  the  grave,  delusive  and  destroying  hopes 
of  heaven.  At  death,  our  great  business  is  to 
die,  not  to  prepare  for  it :  that  is  the  business  of 
life.  But  by  this  institution,  the  dying  sinner  is 
encouraged  to  depend  upon  the  last  act  of  a  Priest 
for  the  salvation  of  his  soul.  Baptism,  as  the 
Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  informs  us, 
remits  original  sin  ;  Penance,  remits  mortal  sins  ; 
and  Extreme  Unction  remits  venial  sins  ;  it  also 
says  that  in  this,  as  in  the  other  Sacraments,  the 
Priest  is  the  representative  of  Jesus  Christ ;  (See 
6th  Chap.)  and  the  Council  of  Trent,  (Canon 
8th  on  the  Sacraments,)  declares,  "  that  grace  is 
conferred  by  the  Sacraments  of  the  new  law,  by 
their  own  power."  Put  these  doctrines  together, 
and  it  results,  that  the  Sacraments  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  in  the  hands  of  any  Priest,  are  in  and 
of  themselves,  sufficient  to  fit  a  man  to  die. 
Hence  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God  on  the 
heart  is  wholly  put  aside  ;  the  object  of  faith  is 
not  Christ,  but,  as  Mr.  Hughes  himself  informs 
us,  "the  Holy  Catholic  Church,"  i.  e.  the  Priest- 
hood of  the  Church :  the  regeneration  of  the 
heart  is  not  required,  or  if  it  be,  it  is  wrought 
by  the  Priest  and  the  Sacraments :  and  thus 
without  saving  faith  or  personal  holiness,  with- 
out repentance  and  the  knowledge  of  the  Sa- 
viour, the  departing  soul  is  absolved  by  the 
Priest,  and  by  the  application  of  oil  to  the  body, 
his  soul  is  dismissed  a  safe  and  fit  candidate  for 
heaven ! 

6.  This  institution  is  an  utter  novelty  in  the 
Church  of  Christ.  The  very  language  of  the 
decree  owns  it  to  be  an  invention  of  men.  Pope 
Innocent  the  1st,  calls  it  a  kind  of  sacrament. 
Cardinal  Cajetan,  Chemmitius,  Hugo,  Peter 
Lombard,  Alexander,  Cassander,  not  to  mention 
Augustine,  and  other  Fathers,  deny  that  it  is  a 
sacrament  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  thereby  show  that 
it  is  a  novelty  in  the  church. 

7.  In  fine,  this  article  of  faith  entirely  ex- 
plodes your  infallibility  as  a  church.  This 
is  proved  in  the  dilemma  stated  above.  But 
still  more,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Manning,  a  celebrat- 
ed defender  of  your  faith,  in  his  "  short  me- 
thod with  Protestants,"  (pp.  29.  &c.)  thus 
writes :  "  The  Church  of  Christ  can  only  be 
that  which  believes  wholly  and  entirely  the  doc- 
trine that  was  taught  by  Christ,  and  delivered  by 
his  apostles.  That  church  that  would  teach  any 
one  point  of  doctrine  contrary  to  the  revealed 
word  of  God,  which  I  call  heresy,  would  not  be 
the  chaste  spouse  of  Christ,  but  an  harlot  and  the 
school  of  Satan,  and  the  gates  of  hell  would  pre- 
vail against  her."  Mr.  Hughes  also,  has  said 
(Letter  No.  1.)  "that  the  doctrines  of  Christiani- 
ty have  been  regarded  by  the  Catholic  Church 
from  the  beginning  as  fixed  stars  in  the  firmament  of 
revelation."  Then,  as  this  doctrine  was  not  from 
the  beginning,  the  Roman  is  not  the  Catholic 
Church ;  and,  by  your  own  and  Dr.  Manning's 
showing,  she  is  heretical,  she  is  an  harlot,  and 
the  gates  of  hell  have  prevailed  against  her ! 


II.  The  Church  of  Rome  is  grossly  idolatrous. 
The  Church  of  Rome  worships,  and  commands 
the  worship  (not  only  of  the  consecrated  bread, 
as  we  have  already  showed,  but)  of  the  cross  of 
Christ,  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  of  the  Saints,  of  re- 
lics and  images.  I  have  already  proved  in 
former  letterrs  that  the  Catechism  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  has  omitted  that  part  of  the  se- 
cond commandment  which  forbids  the  mak- 
ing and  worshipping  of  images.  Though  you 
have  disputed  this,  you  have  not  denied  that 
the  versions  used  in  various  countries,  either 
wholly  drop,  or  criminally  suppress  the  offen- 
sive parts.  Indeed  the  very  edition  printed  by 
Mr.  Cummiskey  in  this  city,  recommended  by 
four  Arch-Bishops,  and  used,  probably,  in  St. 
Johns,  ivholly  omits  it.  If  not  it  is  easy  to  dis- 
prove it.  These  are  expressive  erasures.  But 
we  have  decrees  of  Councils  for  idolatry.  The  2d 
Council  of  Nice  established  idolatry  by  law.  How 
stoutly  its  acts  were  opposed,  in  the  bosom  of 
the  church,  at  that  day,  I  need  hardly  inform 
you  ;  and  I  suppose  you  also  know  that  when 
the  emperors  would  have  put  down  idolatry,  the 
Popes  would  not  permit  it ;  but  enthroned  ido- 
latry in  the  heart  of  the  church.  The  Council  of 
Trent  has  reduced  this  worship,  (though  with 
some  caution)  to  a  system.  Thus,  (25th  Sess.) 
it  is  said,  "  It  is  a  good  and  useful  thing,  sup- 
pliantly,  to  invoke  the  saints,  and  to  flee  to 
their  prayers,  help  and  assistance  ;"  "  that 
veneration  and  honour  are  due  to  the  relics  of 
the  saints,  and  that  it  is  a  useful  thing  for  the 
faithful  to  honour  these  and  other  sacred  monu- 
ments, and  that  the  memorials  of  the  saints  are 
are  to  be  frequented,  to  obtain  their  help  and  as- 
sistance ,-"  "  that  the  images  of  Christ,  of  the 
Virgin,  mother  of  God,  and  of  other  saints,  are 
to  be  had  and  retained  especially  in  churches, 
and  due  honours  and  veneration  rendered  them  ; 
that  we  are  to  kiss  then,  uncover  our  heads  in  their 
presence,  and  prostrate  ourselves  ,•"  "that  great  ad- 
vantages are  to  be  derived  from  all  sacred  ima- 
ges,— because  of  the  divine  miracles  performed 
by  the  saints  ;"  "  that  new  miracles  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted, and  new  relics  to  be  received,  with  the  recog- 
nition and  approval  of  a  bishop,"  &c.  It  is  remarka- 
ble, that  the  very  language,  word  for  word,  in 
which  the  heathen,  both  of  ancient  and  modern 
times,  excused  their  idolatry,  is  used  by  the 
church  of  Rome.  And  what  is  still  more  remark- 
able, their  worship  of  idols  and  Saints,  and  their 
abounding  ceremonies,  are  derived  in  chief  part 
from  the  ancient  Pagans.  Let  any  intelligent  read- 
er take  up  "Middleton's  Letter  from  Rome,  show- 
ing the  exact  conformity  between  Popery  and  Pa- 
ganism, or  the  religion  of  the  present  Romans  de- 
rived from  that  of  their  heathen  ancestors,"  and  if 
he  does  notarise  from  its  perusal  a  Protestantin  his 
opinions  on  this  subject,  at  least,  if  he  can  in  any 
sort  escape  the  conviction  of  modern  Rome's 
heathenism  and  idolatry,  he  must  be  something 
of  a  stock  himself ! 

The  church  of  Rome  worship  the  cross  of  Christ. 
Thomas  Aquinas  (your  divine  doctor)  tells  us, 
"  that  the  cross  of  Christ  is  to  be  adored  with  divine 


S0» 


adoration  „•"  "  if  we  speak  of  the  very  cross  on 
which  Christ  was  crucified,  it  is  to  be  worshipped 
with  divine  worship.''''  (Aquin.  3.  p.  q.  25.  Art. 
4.)  The  following  is  the  authorised  worship  of 
the  cross  in  the  church  of  Rome :  it  is  taken  from 
the  Breviary,  the  book  which  contains  the  daily 
service  of  the  church,  i.  e.  their  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  sanctioned  by  the  Popes ;  of  universal  use 
in  the  church ;  compiled  by  order  of  the  council 
of  Trent;  and  enjoined  with  great  strictness  upon 
all  who  enjoy  any  ecclesiastical  revenue,  upon  all 
the  regular  orders  of  Monks  and  Nuns  ;  upon  sub- 
deacons,  Deacons,  and  Priests,  to  repeat  either  in 
public  or  private,  the  whole  service  of  each  day 
from  its  pages.  The  omission  of  any  one  of  the 
eight  portions  of  which  that  service  consists,  is 
declared  to  be  a  mortal  sin.  This  book  contains, 
the  following  idolatrous  worship  page  330. 

The  English  translation  in 
the  office  of  the  holy  week,  is 
this: 


Hail  cross  of  hopes  the  most 
sublime, 

Now  is  the  mourning  pas- 
sion time, 

Improve   religious   souls  in 


grace. 
The  sins  of  criminals  efface! 


O  crux  Av«!  spes  unica! 
Hoc  passionis  tempore, 
Auge  piis  justitiam, 
Reisque  dona  veniam, 

JpRlptjgimeiis  of  idolatry  equally  direct  may  be 
^fathered  also  from  the  Missal,  or  Mass-Book  of 
the  church,  not  to  mention  the  profuse  exam- 
ples which  are  found  in  your  standard-writers. 
And  observe  this  worship  is  given  to  the  cross  it- 
self, yes  to  the  very  wood,  the  senseless  matter. 
There  are  probably  more  relics  of  the  real  cross  on 
which  Christ  was  crucified,  now  exhibited  and 
worshipped  in  the  church  of  Rome,  than  would 
build  a  ship  ! 

The  Virgin  Mary  is  also  worshipped;   not  only 
honoured,  but  worshipped.     I  observe  you  recog- 
nise this  as  a  part  of  the  religious  education  of 
your   collier,    (letter   No.    5.)      Father   Crasset 
(pages '  60.  to   128)  says   "  being  truly  our  Sa- 
viour's mother,  as  well   in  heaven  as  she  was 
on  earth,  she  still  retains  a  sort  of  natural  au- 
I      thority  over  his  person,  over  his  goods,  and  over 
his  omnipotence  ;  so  that,  as  Albertus  Magnus  says, 
^  /by  her  motherly  authority  she  can  command  him. 
j  She  preserves  from  heresy  and  error,  she  defends, 
j"   comforts,  procures  a  good  death  for  her  followers, 
has  brought  souls  out  of  purgatory  ,•  we  ought  to 
render  her  religious  honour ;  also  the  same  to  her 
images,   as  the  many  miracles  done  by  them  re- 
quire."" 

In  the  "  offices  of  the  blessed  Virgin,"  is  this 
prayer.  "  Let  Mary  and  her  son  bless  us  /" 
V  Confession  is  made  "  to  Almighty  God,  and  the 
VJilessed  Virgin  Mary,"  &c.  &c.  Absolution  (see 
Ritual)  is  made  in  the  name  of  "  the  passion  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  merits  of  the  bles- 
sed Virgin,1"  &c.  &c.  Bellarmine  closes  the  dis- 
cussion on  this  very  topic  with  this  idolatrous  doxo- 
logy.  Laue  Deo  Virginique  matri  Mariae:  "  Glory 
be  to  God  and  the  Virgin  Mary  his  mother."  In 
the  Breviary  (office  of  the  blessed  Mary,)  she  is 
hailed  and  worshipped,  as  the  gate  of  heaven,-  she 
is  implored  to  loose  the  bands  of  the  guilty,  to  give 


light  to  the  blind,  to  establish  their  peace  and 
drive  away  all  evil ;  to  make  them  holy,  and  to 
guide  them  safely  till  they  see  Jesus  on  high ! 
She  is  called  the  glorious  mistress  of  the  earth, 
and  the  queen  of  Heaven  !  And  this  not  by  a  tran- 
sient fanatic,  but  in  the  book  of  common  prayer, 
in  which  the  daily  exercises  of  the  Roman  church 
are  performed ;  which  Mr.  Hughes  and  every 
Priest  is  bound  to  use  ;  the  standard  book  of  wor- 
ship, and  the  guide  of  the  "  universal''''  church. 
Is  not  this  gross  unqualified  creature-worship  1 
Could  more  be  said  to  God1?  Can  He  do  more  than 
is  thus  attributed  to  a  mere  creature  ? 

The  worship  of  Images  in  the  Church  of  Rome  is 
clearly  idolatrous.  But  for  want  of  room  I  omit 
the  proof  now,  yet  will  return  to  it  when  you 
please. 

Jls  to  relicts  it  seems  almost  incredible  to  what 
an  extent  superstition  and  idolatry  have  been  car- 
ried. These,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  decree  copied 
above,  are  to  be  religiously  honoured,  in  plain 
English,  worshipped.  11000  are  preserved  in  one 
church  in  Spain;  some  of  these  are  "several  pieces 
of  the  most  holy  cross,  on  which  Christ  suffered; 
thirteen  thorns  from  the  crown  He  wore;  a  piece 
of  the  manger  in  which  He  lay ;  a  piece  of  the 
handkerchief  with  which  the  Holy  Virgin  wiped 
her  eyes  at  the  foot  of  the  cross;  a  thigh  of  St. 
Lawrence;  and  the  nails,  and  lance,  and  other  in- 
stiuments  of  Christ's  passion,  &c.&c.  They  show 
at  Rome  the  heads  of  Peter  and  Paul,  a  lock  of  the 
Virgin's  hair,  a  phial  of  her  tears,  some  of  the 
sponge,  the  rod  of  Aaron,  and  part  of  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  though  the  latter  the  Jews  never 
could  find  after  the  Babylonish  captivity.  The 
emerald  dish  on  which  our  Saviour  was  said  to 
have  eaten  his  last  supper,  was  taken  to  Paris  by 
the  ungracious  French  troops;  and  the  "Institute," 
on  trial,  found  it  a  piece  of  green  glass.  They 
swear  by  these  relics,  they  worship  them  avowed- 
ly, (as  in  the  case  of  the  cross)  they  consecrate 
them,  dedicate  them  to  God,  and  churches  to  them, 
and  even  trace  miracles  to  them.  I  will  not  pur- 
sue the  humiliating  detail.  But,  surely,  when  the 
authority  of  the  church  enjoined,  and  the  people 
practised  such  idolatry  and  superstition,  it  was 
time  for  protests  to  sound,  and  Reformation  to  be- 
gin. On  this  whole  subject  the  Council  of  Constan- 
tinople, and  the  2d  Council  of  Nice,  were  directly 
at  issue,  though  in  close  succession  one  after  the 
other.  They  cannot  both'  be  right.  One  said 
Images  must  not  be  put  in  the  churches,  nor  hon- 
oured by  the  people.  The  other  rescinded  their  de- 
cisions, anathematized  them,  and  erected  and  wor- 
shipped with  new  zeal  the  images  which  they  had 
broken  down.  Which  was  right  1  Surely  not 
both?  If  either  was  wrong,  your  infallibility  per- 
ishes ! 

III.  The  Church  of  Rome  is  an  enemy  to  human 
liberty,  and  has  done  all  in  her  power  to  stij\€~" 
When  you  defined  the  Reformation  to  be  '•''the  re- 
ligion of  free  thinking  about  the  meaning  of  the 
Bible;  the  religion  in  which  every  man  has  a  right 
to  judge  for  himself''  (Letter  21.)  you  unwittingly 
disclosed  the  doctrine  and  spirit  of  your  commu* 
nion,  viz.  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  judge  for  him" 


210 


self,  but  must  receive  what  he  is  commanded  to 
believe  in  implicit  faith.     The  spirit  of  oppres- 
sion begins  in  your  church  as  soon  as  the  child  is 
born,  and   ends  only  with  death — nay,  if  he  will 
not  submit,  his  "seal  after  death  is  devoted"  as  in 
the  case  of  John  Huss,  "  to  infernal  devils"  The 
7  Sess.  14  Can.  Coun.  Trent,  thus  lords  it  over  the 
souls  of  men  :  "  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  when 
these  baptized  children  grow  up,  they  are  to  be  ask- 
ed whether  they  will  confirm  the  promises  made  by 
their  godfathers  in  their  name  at  their  baptism  ; 
and  if  they  say  they  will  not,  they  are  to  be  left  to 
their  own  choice,  and  not  to  be  compelled  in  the 
mean  time  to  lead  a  Christian  life,  by  any  other 
punishment  than   exclusion   from   the  Eucharist 
and  the  other  sacraments,  until  they  repent :  let 
him  be  accursed."     Then,  is  not  every  person 
baptized    in    your    communion   liable    to  force, 
(where  it  will  be  tolerated)  by  punishment,  be- 
sides exclusion  from  the  sacraments,  if  he'willnot 
submit.'     Surely!    where,  then,   is  his  liberty? 
Is  he  not  the  slave  of  spiritual  despotism  wheth- 
er he  will  or  not !     Baptism  thus  becomes,  as  it 
has  been  truly  said,  an  indellible  brand  of  slavery  ,- 
and  the  church  claims  her  slaves  wherever  she 
finds  them,  and  condemns  them  to  perdition  when 
they  will  not  submit ;  and  being  the  "  only  true'1'' 
church,  they  are  to  be  forced  into  her  communion, 
or  damned  out  of  it.     And  as  this  is  a  canon  of 
the  church,  involving  an  article  of  faith,  so  every 
true    Catholic   must   believe  it   without  doubt  or 
faultering,  viz.  that  punishment  is  to  he  applied  to 
compel  belief.      Again  :     suppose   the   unhappy 
subject,  (say  in  Italy  or  Spain,)  when  "he. grows 
up"  resolves  that  he  will  not  "  confirm  the  promi- 
ses made  in  his  name  by  his  godfather  at  bap- 
tism," we  have  practical   demonstration   of  the 
treatment    he    endures.      The    inquisition    is    at 
hand.     I  have  always  failed  to  fix  this  aye  sore 
■  on  your  vision  !     You  will   not  see  it.     But  the 
public  will.     The  Inquisition  is  a  court  of  which 
the  Pope  is  head  ;  it  is  his  tribunal,  and  is  esta- 
blished throughout  the  world,  wherever  there  are 
Roman   Catholics,   and  where    the    government 
will  tolerate  it.     These  bloody   tribunals  arrest 
and  punish,  and   torture,  and  condemn  to  death 
for   error  of  doctrine  ,■    not  for  transgressions   of 
civil  law,  for  they  are  professedly  spiritual  courts, 
and  have  to  do  with  "  heretical  pravity."     Yet 
they  apply  force  from  first  to  last.     The  interior 
of  an  inquisition  is  hell  on  earth.     Not  only  have 
some  of  their  victims  escaped  to  tell  us,  but  they 
have  been  thrown  open  by  invading  armies  ;  and 
military  leaders,  more  merciful  than  the  ruthless 
inquisitors,  have  exposed  to  the  gaze  of  an  as- 
tonished world  the  scenes  of  alternate  butchery 
and  debauch,  in  which  the  ghostly  fathers  have 
glutted,  as  they  respectively  arose,  their  zeal  and 
their  lusts.     The  Bishop  of  Aire  talks  of  "  inno- 
AJcent  victims  whose  numbers   have  been  greatly 
f   exaggerated  !"     But  who  is  an  innocent  victim  ? 
one  who  is  not  a  heretic  ?     Then  if  a  man  be  a 
heretic,  he  ought  to  be  punished  !     Yes — this  is 
the   conclusion    necessarily.     And   then   of    the 
150,000  who  suffered  in  the  Inquisition  during 
fifty  years,  some  were  innocent  victims?     Does 


not  this  very  defence  establish  my  position,  viz. 
that  there  is  no  real  liberty  of  person  or  of  con- 
science under  the  Roman  Catholic  Relio-ion  ? 
that  to  dissent  is  to  be  a  guilty  victim  ?  And 
the  alternative  is  submission  to,  or  oppression  by 
it  ?  What  is  conclusive  proof  that  the  holy.  See 
sustains  and  approves  the  Inquisition  is  this,  that 
it  never  has  uttered  one  word  or  taken  one  step  to 
put  it  down,  though  one  word  wTould  have  done 
it.  Nay,  so  far  from  this,  it  has  been  the  parent 
and  the  patron  of  it. 

The  spirit  of  Romanism  is  a  spirit  of  persecu- 
tion. This  is  necessary  to  its  nature.  This  I 
have  shown  at  large  heretofore,  and  you  have 
struggled  in  vain  through  many  a  captious  and 
artful  page  to  avert  the  testimony  of  bulls,  de- 
crees, and  historical  evidence  to  that  effect. 

The  Church  of  Rome  is  the  avowed  enemy  of  the 
freedom  of  the  press.  I  have  proved  this  from  the 
Pope's  circular  letter.  You  have  not  denied  this. 
I  have  showed  its  restrictrons  on  the  translation, 
printing,  sale,  and  perusal  even  of  God's  holy 
word.  I  have  pointed  you  to  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee at  Rome  who  vmtch  and  purify  the  press. 
But  you  find  safety  in  silence.  Let  me  present 
to  you  a  decretal  by  the  Lateran  Council  held 
at  Rome.  (Sess.  10.  A.  D.  1515,  Leo  X.  pres 
ing.) 

"  In  the  same  session  a  decretal  was  issuec 
concerning  the  printing  of  books,  in  the  following' 
form.  viz.  By  order  of  the  holy  Council,  we  in 
fine,  ordain  and  decree,  that  no  person  shall  pre- 
sume to  print,  or  cause  to  be  printed,  any  book  or 
other  writing  whatsoever,  either  in  our  city  (Rome) 
or  in  any  other  cities  and  dioceses,  unless  it  shall 
first  have  been  carefully  examined,  if  in  this  city, 
by  our  Vicar  and  the  master  of  the  holy  palace, 
or  if  in  other  cities  and  dioceses  by  the  Bishop  or 
his  deputy,  with  the  inquisitor  of  heretical  pravity 
for  the  diocese,  in  which  the  said  impression  is 
about;  to  be  made  and  unless  also  it  shall  have 
received,  under  their  own  hand,  their  written  ap- 
proval, given  without  price  and  without  delay. 
Whosoever  shall  presume  to  do  otherwise,  besides 
the  loss  of  the  books,  which  shall  be  publicly 
burned,  shall  be  bound  by  the  sentence  of  excom- 
munication." (Caranza,  page  670.)  By  author 
rity  of  the  council  of  Trent,  this  decretal  and  all| 
others  of  a  like  kind  are  thus  confirmed  viz. 
Rule  1.  "Ml  books  condemned  by  the  supreme 
pontiffs,  or  general  Councils,  before  the  year  1515, 
and  not  comprised  in  the  present  Index,  are,  never- 
theless, to  be  considered  as  condemned."  The 
creed  also,  as  adopted  by  every  Roman  Catho- 
lic, requires  all  "  to  receive  undoubtedly,  all 
things  delivered,  defined,  and  declared  by  the 
sacred  canons  and  General  Councils,  and  particular^ 
ly  by  the  holy  Council  of  Trent."  These  decre- 
tals, rules  &c.  of  Popes,  and  of  Councils  having 
been  thus  finally  confirmed  by  your  last  and  great 
Council  of  Trent,  are  now  in  full  force;  they 
bind  every  Roman  Catholic  upon  earth ;  they 
involve  an  article  of  faith,  and  must  be  be- 
lieved; they  announce  infallible  law  and  must  be 
obeyed;  to  reject  them  is  heresy;  to  obey  them 
brings  ruin  to  civil  liberty;  yet  to  the  present 


211 


hour  they  are  in  full  operation  wherever  the  Pope 
has  sway.  Now  you  have  this  alternative,  dis- 
claim these  decrees,  and  you  are  not  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic; defend  them  and  you  are  a  traitor  to  your 
country.  Will  you  defend  the  dogmas  of  infalli- 
bility and  Papal  supremacy  at  such  a  price  1 

To  make  this  despotism  over  thought  complete, 
and  conscious  that  truth  and  testimony  were 
against  the  "  Mother  church"  the  Holy  See  has 
applied  its  pruning  knife  to  trim  down  the  works 
which  were  allowed  to  appear,  and  even  the  wri- 
tings of  the  "  Fathers"  have  been  erased,  and 
amended  to  bring  them  into  harmony  with  your 
doctrines  and  decrees.  Evidence  on  this  sub- 
ject is  both  abundant  and  strong.  Some  of  it 
I  have  adduced  already;  more  is  at  hand,,  if 
you  will  meet  me  on  this  point.  Why  you 
entirely  evade  this  whole  subject  the  public 
must,  by  this  time,  clearly  understand.  As  it 
is  a  painful  and  delicate  topic  it  might  almost 
seem  a  matter  of  mercy  to  let  it  slumber.  1 
must  be  permitted,  however,  to  name  it  to  you  as 
an  item  which  convinced  the  Reformers  that  truth 
was  not  your  friend  ;  that  free  inquiry  would  be 
the  ruin  of  your  Church  ;  and  that  liberty  was  to 
be  sought  in  retiring  from  her  iron  grasp.  At 
your  pleasure  we  will  examine  this  topic  fully. 

Once  more,  civil  liberty  cannot  flourish  under  the 
influence  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  is  to  the  Re- 
formation we  owe,  under  God,  all  the  liberty  now 
in  the  world.  If  you  take  the  map  of  the  world, 
and  strike  from  it  those  states  which  are  now 
eminently  Protestant,  how  much  civil  liberty  will 
remain?  How  much  is  therein  Spain?  How 
much  in  Austria?  How  much  in  Portugal? 
How  much  in  Italy?  In  this  our  age  the  power 
of  the  Pope  is  broken  :  his  political  consequence 
is  gone  ;  and  no  wonder,  (as  is  said  in  a  letter 
lately  written  from  Rome)  it  is  currently  fore- 
boded in  the  eternal  city  that  the  present  will  be 
the  last  Pope.  But  where  he  reigns,  and  while 
he  reigns,  men  cannot  be  free.  It  is  impossible. 
Hence  be  must  soon  finally  and  irreparably  fall ; 
for  he  will  not  change,  and  the  system  cannot 
long  survive  that  inextinguishable  love  of  liberty 
and  growing  light  of  knowledge,  which  the  God 
of  providence  and  truth  is  sending  forth  upon  the 
nations. 

Here  then  are  three  leading  errors  in  the  doc- 
trine as  well  as  the  practice  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  showing  her  manifest  departure  from  the 
religion  of  Christ,  and  calling  aloud  for  Reforma- 
tion, justifying,  nay,  forcing  a  protest  from  every 
friend  of  truth.  I  suppose  your  discretion  will 
pass  these  by,  as  you  have  done  the  long  cata- 
logue of  cognate  errors  already  exposed  in  my 
previous  letters.  But  our  readers  will  not  pass 
them  ;  nor  will  your  suffering  cause  find  shelter 
in  your  silence. 

I  now  proceed  to  notice  your  attack  on  the 
"  Protestant  Religion." 

And  1st.  You  have  admitted  fully  (Letter  No. 
23.)  "that  what  are  called  'orthodox'  tenets 
among  Protestants  are  all  found  in  the  Catholic 
Church;"  and  "that  the  Reformers  in  going  out 
from  the  Church  carried  them  forth,"  such  as 


"  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and  divinity  of  the 
Son  of  God,  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  the 
atonement  through  the  death  of  Christ."  (See 
your  Letter,  No.  23.)  And  (in  the  same  letter) 
"  you  admit,  for  argument  sake,  that  the  Religion 
of  Christ,  established  in  its  purity  by  the  Apos- 
tles, gradually  became  corrupt ;  and  was  finally 
restored  to  its  primitive  purity  by  the  event  called 
the  Reformation  :"  you  say  "  starting  even  from 
this  extravagant  supposition,  you  will  find  it  a 
difficult  tssk  to  prove  that  the  Protestant  Religion 
is  the  Religion  of  Christ."  Now  by  the  first  ad- 
mission Protestants  are  "  orthodox"  in  certain 
"tenets,"  and  in  such,  they  agree  with  your 
Church,  for  "  they  brought  them  out  from  her." 
By  the  second  admission,  the  other  tenets  of  your 
Church  being  errors,  it  follows  as  an  irresistible 
consequence,  on  your  own  principles,  that  "  or- 
thodox," "  Protestants"  are  the  only  true  Chris- 
tians in  the  world.  For  you  admit  that  all  we 
hold,  of  the  truth,  we  got  from  you  ;  that  all  you 
hold  which  we  refused  to  bring  away  is  false,- 
therefore,  we  hold  all  that  is  true,  and  what  we 
reject  is  false;  hence  the  discussion,  on  your  part, 
is  at  an  end. 

2.  As  to  the  character  of  the  Reformers,  your 
reasoning  is  absurd. 

If  all  you  say  of  them  is  true,  the  case  stands 
thus  :  They  were  fallible  men  ;  so  we  hold  them 
to  have  been  ;  and  emerging  from  the  long  night 
of  darkness  and  death  which  the  Papacy  had 
spread  over  Christendom,  no  wonder  if  they  had 
faults,  and  errors  too.  They  are  not  our  guides, 
but  the  Lord,  and  his  Apostles,  speaking  in  the 
Bible.  They  were  Reformers  such  as  often  ap- 
peared in  the  Old  Testament  Church,  not  to  give 
a  new  Religion,  but  to  restore  the  old.  We  call 
no  man  "Father,"  ar.d  only  follow  them  so  far  as 
they  follow  Christ.  Suppose  they  had  all  the  de- 
fects you  falsely  charge  on  them,  and  held  some 
opinions  which  were  not  true  ;  yet  as  the  Refor- 
mation was  necessary,  and  the  religion  of  Pro- 
testants looks  to  the  Bible  as  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  it  affects  us  not.  But 
with  your  Church  it  is  far  otherwise.  A  large 
party  in  it  believes  in  the  Pope's  infallibility. 
This  is  especially  the  system  of  the  Jesuits, 
and  of  Italy  at  large.  Now  on  their  principles 
your  Church  is  irreparably  ruined.  Fifty  apos- 
tate Popes  in  one  long  black  line,  are  men- 
tioned, by  one  of  your  writers;  many  Popes,. 
Baronius  tells  us,  were  elected  and  ruled  by 
strumpets;  divers  others  came  in  by  Simony; 
others  still  filled  with  their  bastard  progeny, 
the  highest  offices  of  the  Church  ;  some  dealt 
in  poison  and  sorcery;  one  sacrificed  to  idols; 
several  Popes  reigned  at  once ;  a  woman  it  is 
said  once  filled  the  Papal  Chair;  and  incest, 
debauchery,  civil  war.  and  unnumbered  crimes 
characterized  the  holy  See  for  more  than  a  cen- 
tury. And,  now,  pray  tell  me,  where  was  the 
infallible  Head  of  the  Church,  and  what  sort  of 
a  Church  was  that  which  sustained,  and  followed 
such  monsters  of  iniquity  ?  But  if  you  say  the 
Pope  -was  not  infallible,  (as  surely  you  must,) 
what  becomes  of  your  argument  under  the  second 


£1$ 


question,  viz :  "  reviewing  the  doctrines  and 
characters  of  the  Reformers*  is  there  any^  even 
the  smallest  evidence,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  had 
aught  to  do  with  it?"  Yet  this  is  your  great  ar- 
gument against  the  Reformation  !  On  your  own 
showing  then,  the  Church  of  Rome  does  not  hold 
the  religion  of  Christ;  to  protest  was  a  right; 
and  Reformation  was  a  duty. 

3.  But  you  have  grossly  slandered  the  Reformers. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  very  remarkable,  that  in 
many  cases  you  studiously  omit  all  references  by 
which  your  quotations  can  be  identified  and  ex- 
posed. In  the  next  place,  where  you  give  the  re- 
ferences, I  have  tried  in  vain  to  find  some  of  the  pas- 
sages to  which  you  refer.  From  this  I  cannot  doubt 
that  you  quote  second  hand  from  Jesuit  authors, 
with  whom  it  is  a  duty  to  falsify  when  ecclesias- 
tical utility  requires  it.  In  the  third  place,  your 
glaring  perversion  of  Luther,  which  I  exposed  at 
the  close  of  my  last  letter,  is  a  living  monument 
from  which  we  learn  how  little  reliance  is  to  be 
placed  on  your  quotations.  I  say  this  with  re- 
gret; but  what  follows  proves  it  necessary.  In 
your  Letter  No.  23,  you  made  Luther  say,  "  let 
this  be  your  rule  in  interpreting  the  Scriptures  ; 
whenever  they  command  a  good  work  do  you  un- 
derstand that  they  forbid  it ;"  that  is,  Luther's 
rule  was,  to  contradict  Scripture  and  encourage 
bad  works !  Such  was  the  language  you  made 
him  hold.  I  quoted  in  answer,  (to  which  I  refer 
the  reader,)  the  whole  passage,  when  lo,  we  find  the 
disjointed  member  of  the  sentence  taking  its  place, 
honestly,  and  making  Luther  urge  good  works  in 
God's  strength,  according  to  God's  word,  and  to 
God's  glory  !  Pressed  by  the  exposure,  you  ven- 
ture in  the  last  Letter  (No.  25,)  to  give  a  new  ver- 
sion of  your  quotation  from  Luther,  and  tell  us 
"  the  sense  of  my  quotation  (from  Luther)  was  to 
show  that  he  denied  free  will  in  man,  denied  the 
possibility  of  keeping  the  Commandments,  or  of 
doing  good  works."  This,  truly,  is  strange  self- 
conviction  !  You  first  pervert  his  meaning,  and 
then  deny  your  own  statement.  Such  is  the  pro- 
cess by  which  you  would  expose  the  Reformation! 
Luther  was  but  a  man,  and  yet  such  a  man  as  no 
slander  can  pull  down.  It  is  well  for  truth  that 
he  had  other  historians  besides  my  Rev.  opponent. 
Erasmus  says,  (see  Tom.  3.  in  Epist.  ad  Albert) 
"  if  I  favour  him,  it  is  because  he  is  a  good  man, 
a  thing  his  very  enemies  acknowledge.  This  I 
observe  that  the  best  men  are  the  least  ofTended 
with  his  writings."  Frederic,  Duke  of  Saxon,  said, 
"  Erasmus  did  truly  point  out  Luther's  two  chief 
faults,  that  he  meddled  with  the  Popes  crown  and 
the  Monks  bellies.''''  Guiccard  (His.  Ital.  1.  13. 
p.  380.)  tells  us,  "  many  conceive  that  the  trou- 
bles raised  against  Luther,  had  their  origin  in  the 
innocency  of  his  life  and  the  soundness  of  his  doc- 
trine, rather  than  in  any  thing  else."  Sir  James 
M'lntosh  says,  of  Luther,  (see  Hist,  of  England, 
chap.  5.  vol.  2.)  "Martin  Luther  was  of  a  charac- 
ter thoroughly  exempt  from  falsehood,  duplicity, 
and  hypocrisy — it  was  fortunate  also  that  the 
enormities  of  Tetzel,  found  Luther  busied  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  principle  which  is  the  basis 
of  all  ethical  judgment,  and  by  the  power  of  which 


he  struck  a  mortal  blow  at  superstition,  viz:  i  men 
are  not  made  righteous  by  performing  certain  ac- 
tions which  are  externally  good ;  but  men  must 
have  right  principles  in  the  first  place,  and  then 
they  will  not  fail  to  perform  virtuous  actions :' 
the  general  terms  which  are  here  used,  enunciate 
a  proposition,  equally  certain  and  sublime,  the 
basis  of  all  pure  ethics,  the  cement  of  the  eternal 
alliance  between  morality  and  religion.  From  the 
promulgation  of  this  principle  may  be  dated  the 
downfall  of  superstition.''''  And  now  shall  we  be- 
lieve the  illustrious  historian  or  the  interested 
priest  1  It  were  easy  in  the  same  way  to  defend 
the  other  honoured  names,  which 'you  have  held 
up,  so  falsely,  to  public  infamy.  We  give  the 
above  only  as  a  specimen,  and  design  hereafter 
to  do  justice  to  their  characters  and  writings. 

4.  Your  four  questions  are  assuming  the  place 
of  your  ten  heads,  and  are  progressively  meet- 
ing their  fate.  You  seem  to  have  no  ideas  be- 
yond them,  and  by  repeating  them  again  and 
again,  even  after  they  are  all  answered,  make  it  ap- 
parent, that  you  intend  no  defence  of  your  doc- 
trines, while  you  have  little  to  say  against  our 
own.  As  to  the  Greek  church,  which  is  as  an- 
cient as  your  own,  I  did  not,  as  you  know,  claim 
her  as  agreeing  with  ourselves  in  all  points ;  but 
stated,  what  you  also  know,  that  she  protested 
against  purgatory,  human  merits,  supererogation, 
forbidding  the  use  of  the  Scripture,  worshipping 
images,  the  sale  of  masses,  extreme  unction  and 
infallibility.  So  far  you  will  allow  she  was  a 
Protestant.  Your  remarks  on  the  Waldenses,  are 
not  worthy  of  notice.  They  entirely  evade  the 
abundant  testimony  brought  by  me,  from  your 
own  writers.  They  contain  nothing;  and  ex  ni- 
hilo  nihil  fit.  The  dialogue  with  which  you 
amuse  your  readers  is  unanswerable.  You  must 
have  been  reading  Corderius's  Colloquies,  or  the 
"  Courtship  of  Cock  Robin  and  Jenny  Wren," 
when  its  fine  conception  was  first  imparted  to 
your  mind ! 

5.  The  doctrinal  unity  of  the  Reformed,  as  ex- 
pressed without  collusion,  and  almost  simulta- 
neously is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  events  in 
the  history  of  the  church.  If,  instead  of  cavilling 
over  garbled  extracts  from  individual  writers,  you 
will  take  up  these  Formularies,  which  were  pub- 
lished over  Europe  at  the  commencement  of  the 
Reformation,  you  may  see  in  them  the  Protestant 
Religion.  No  less  than  twelve  of  these,  contain- 
ing essentially  the  same  doctrines,  are  now  extant. 
They  are  the  Augustan,  the  Tetrapolitan,  Polish, 
Saxon,  Bohemian,  Wittemberg,  Palatine,  Helve- 
tian, French,  Dutch,  English  and  Scotch  Confes- 
sions. They  issued  at  the  call  of  God,  from  mil- 
lions of  minds  in  Germany,  Switzerland,  France, 
Holland,  England,  and  Scotland.  In  due  time, 
(and  though  you  ridicule  the  sentiment  which 
it  conveys,  yet  let  me  say,)  if  God  permit,  I 
propose  to  show  the  essential  harmony  of  many 
of  these  confessions  with  the  word  of  God,  with 
the  earliest  creeds,  councils,  and  fathers,  and  also 
with  each  other;  and  thus  to  display  the  Chris- 
tianity, antiquity,  and  umty  of  the  Protestant  reli- 
cion.    In  contrast  with  this  shall  be  made  to  ap- 


213 


pear,  still  more,  the  total  novelty  of  your  peculiar 
doctrines,  and  the  abounding  variations  of  Popery 
for  1200  years. 

I  terminate  this  letter  with  Bishop  Jewel's 
famous  challenge,  which  he  often  uttered  but 
which  never  was  accepted-  "  If  any  learned 
man  of  our  adversaries,  or  all  the  learned  men 
that  be  alive,  be  able  to  bring  any  one  sufficient 
sentence  out  of  any  old  Catholic  doctor,  or  father, 
or  general  council,  or  Holy  Scripture,  or  any 
one  example  in  the  primitive  church,  whereby  it 
may  clearly  and  plainly  be  proved,  during  the  first 
six  hundred  years,  1.  that  there  were  at  any  time 
any  private  masses  in  the  world  :  2.  or  that  there 
was  then  any  communion  ministered  unto  the  peo- 
ple under  one  kind :  3.  or  that  the  people  had 
their  common  prayer  in  a  strange  tongue  that  the 
people  understood  not :  4.  or  that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  was  then  called  an  Universal  Bishop,  or  head 
of  the  Universal  Church :  5.  or  that  the  people 
were  then  taught  to  believe  that  Christ's  body  is 
really,  substantially,  corporally,  carnally,  or  na- 
turally present,  in  the  sacrament :  6.  or  that  his 
body  is  or  may  be  in  a  thousand  places  or  more 
at  one  time  :  7.  or  that  the  priest  did  then  hold  up 
the  sacrament  over  his  head  :  8.  or  that  the  people 
did  fall  down  and  worship  it  with  godly  honours  : 
9.  or  that  the  sacrament  was  then,  or  ought  now 
to  be,  hanged  up  under  a  canopy  :  10.  or  that  in 
the  sacrament  after  the  words  of  consecration 
there  remained  only  the  accidents  and  shows, 
without  the  substance,  of  the  bread  and  wine : 
11.  or  that  then  the  priest  divided  the  sacra- 
ment in  three  parts,  and  afterwards  received  him- 
self alone  :  12.  or  that  whoever  had  said  the  sa- 
crament is  a  figure,  a  pledge,  a  token,  or  a  remem- 
brance of  Christ's  body,  had  therefore  been  ad- 
judged for  an  heretic  :  13.  or  that  it  was  lawful 


then  to  have  thirty,  twenty,  fifteen,  ten,  or  five 
masses  said  in  the  same  church  in  one  day  :  14. 
or  that  images  were  then  set  up  in  the  churches 
to  the  intent  the  people  might  worship  them  :   15. 
or  that  the  lay-people  were  forbidden  to  read  the 
word  of  God  in  their  own  tongue  :    16.  or  that  it 
was  then  lawful  for  the  priest,  to  pronounce  the 
words  of  consecration  closely,  or  in  private  to 
himself:  17.  or  that  the  priest  had  then  authority  to 
offer  up  Christ  unto  his  Father:  18.  or  to  communi- 
cate and  receive  the  Sacrament  for  another,  as  they 
do:   19.  or  to  apply  the  virtue  of  Christ's  death 
and  passion  to  any  man  by  means  of  the  Mass  : 
20.  or  that  it  was  then  thought  a  sound  doctrine 
to  teach  the  people  that  Mass,  ex  opere  operato, 
(that  is  upon  account  of  the  work  wrought)  is 
able  to  remove  any  part  of  our  sin  :  21:   or  that 
any  Christian  man  called  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord,  his  God  :  22.  or  that  the  people  were  then 
taught  to  believe  that  the  body  of  Christ  remain- 
eth  in  the  Sacrament  as  long  as  the  accidents  of 
bread  and  wine  remain  there  without  corruption : 
23.  or  that  a  mouse,  or  any  other  worm  or  beast, 
may  eat  the  body  of  Christ,  (for  so  some  of  our 
adversaries  have  said  and  taught) :  24.  or  that 
when  Christ  said  hoc  est  corpum  meum,  (this  is 
my  body)  the  word  hoc  (this)  pointed  not  to  the 
bread,  but  to  an  individium  vagum,  as  some  of 
them  say :  25.  or  that  the  accidents,  or  forms,  or 
shows,  of  bread  and  wine  be  the  Sacraments  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood,  and  not  rather  the  very 
bread  and  wine  itself:  26.  or  that  the  Sacrament 
is  a  sign  or  token  of  the  body  of  Christ  that  lieth 
hid  underneath  it :  27,  or  that  ignorance  is  the  mo- 
ther and  cause  of  true  devotion — The  conclusion 
is,  that  I  should  then  be  content  to  yield  and  sub- 
scribe." Yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinrjdgb, 


CONTROVERSY NP.  27. 


Bs  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Relfcion  or  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  August  2,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — I  have  just  read  your  last  letter.  It 
is  remarkable  for  nothing,  except  a  repetition  of 
special  pleading,  petty  sophistry,  and,  as  usual, 
the  evasion  of  the  question  at  issue.  It  is  supe- 
rior, however,  in  style  and  good  manners,  (if  not 
in  argument)  to  most  of  its  predecessors  from  the 
same  quarter.  When  I  saw  myself  again  address- 
ed by  "  Rev.  Sir,"  which  you  had  so  long  denied 
me,  and  marked  the  absence  of  deistical  objec- 
tion and  flippant  personality,  I  was  tempted,  for 
a  moment,  to  question  the  identity  of  authorship. 
But  this  suspicion  vanished  from  my  mind  the 
moment  I  read  your  classical  allusion  to  the 
"  courtship  of  Cock  Robin  and  Jenny  Wren." 

It  must  have,  long  since,  become  manifest  to 
every  candid  and  sensible  reader,  that  you  utterly 
disregard  the  rules  of  this  controversy,  to  the  ob- 
servance of  which  you  were  bound  by  your  sig- 
nature. How  far  this  is  honourable,  I  shall  not 
take  upon  me  to  say.  In  the  world,  the  man  who 
makes  an  agreement  and  then  violates,  systemati- 
cally, all  its  conditions,  enjoys  no  enviable  fame. 
"  The  rule  of  faith"  and  then  the  "  Protestant  reli- 
gion" were  the  questions  to  be  discussed,  succes- 
sively. "  And  the  parties  agree  respectively,  to 
adhere  strictly  to  the  subject  of  discussion  for  the 
time  being,  and  to  admit  no  second  question  until 
the  first  shall  have  been  exhausted."  If,  as  ap- 
pears, you  did  not  intend  to  fulfil  this  part  of  the 
agreement,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  account  for  your 
having  entered  into  it.  As  it  is,  however,  no  as- 
sertion of  mine  is  necessary  to  show  that  you 
have  given  up  your  rule  of  faith,  and  that  you 
shrink  from  the  defence  of  the  Protestant  religion. 
On  the  former  topic,  the  amount  of  your  six 
months  labour  is  this,  that  the  Bible  is  the  infalli- 
ble rule  to  all  those  who  are  fortunate  enough  to 
arrive  at  the  true  sense  of  it.  But  that  private  in- 
terpretation, when  it  extracts  from  the  sacred 
volume  a  ivrong  meaning  is  an  "  abuse."  And 
that  relatively  to  all  who  are  guilty  of  this  abuse, 
even  the  Bible  is  not  an  infallible  rule! !  Thus 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  itself  as  a  rule 
is  made  to  evaporate  under  the  chemical  influ- 
ence of  your  arguments.  Every  peculiar  sys- 
tem of  Protestantism  looks  upon  itself  as  being 
the  system  of  the  Bible,  and  whilst  each 
Tetorts  upon  the  other  the  abuse  of  the  writ- 
ten word  of  God,  Mr.  Breckinridge,  pleading  in 
the  name  of  all,  bears  testimony  that  those  who  are 
guided  by  the  true  sense  of  the  Bible  are  "  in- 
fallibly right,"  but  that  those  who  with  equal  sin- 
cerity miss  the  true  sense,  are  infallibly  wrong. 


Still  he  assert  that  the  Bible  alone,  interpreted 
by  each  indiTiual  for  himself  is  "  the  infallible 
rule  of  faith  apointed  by  Christ." 

As  to  the  otsr  question,  it  also,  has  been  vir- 
tually abandoTd.  The  reader  must  have  observ- 
ed that  you  Id  yourself  unable  to  answer  my 
questions.  I  sked  you  to  define  the  Protestant 
religion;  and 'ou  could  not  tell  me  what  it  is. 
Arguments  ar  authorities  were  adduced  to  show 
that  it  could  it  be  the  religion  of  Christ,  and  no 
attempt  has  fen  made  to  refute  the  arguments 
or  question  tlauthorities  taken  from  the  writings 
of  the  Refonrs  themselves.  You  say  you  can- 
not find  the  otations,  and  insinuate  that  they 
are  spurious  This  inclines  me  to  believe  that 
they  were  n  to  you,  and  that  you  are  not  so 
conversant  ih  the  theological  discoveries  of  the 
16th  centuns  I  had  supposed.  But  if  you  will 
only  take  tltrouble  to  designate  the  particular 
passage  quid  in  my  letters  which  you  cannot 
find,  and  cit  spurious,  I  shall  have  great  plea- 
sure in  rnang  the  page  and  leaving  the  origi- 
nal work  :he  Coffee-house  or  any  other  public 
place  for  |  inspection  and  that  of  the  public. 

In  the  itn  time,  I  shall  place  my  unanswered 
questionsiching  the  pretended  divinity  of  the 
ProtestarJligion  on  record,  and  keep  them  as  a 
standing  vertisement.  If  they  cannot  be  an- 
swered, testants  whose  love  of  truth,  is  great- 
er than  V  hatred  of  the  Catholic  religion  will 
see  howseless  is  the  fabric  of  their  belief. 
They  weflect  how  dangerous  is  their  position, 
since  thcan  find  no  Christians  agreeing  with 
them  iioctrines,  from  the  days  of  Christ  un- 
til the  ong  of  Luther,  and  very  few  since. 

Mr.  Mnridge  says  that  "  the  Protestant  is  the 
religionhrist." 

If  so,  lupon  him  1st.  To  tell  me  what  the  Protes- 
religion  is  ? 
2.  U  upon  him  to  say  what  society  of  Chris, 
s  ever  taught  this  pretended  "  religion   of 
'■<"  previous  to  the  Reformation  ? 
3/8  upon  him  to  say,  whether  Christ  revealed 
the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  religion,  be. 
ningwith  the  best  image  of  his  church,  Epis- 
ilianism,  and  terminating  ivith  the  most  con- 
ent  of  Protestant  sects,  the   Unitarians  ?— 
I  if  not,  hoio  many  denominations  out  of  the 
ole  belong  to  the  true  Protestant  religion, 
religion  of  Christ  ? 

call  upon  him  to  show  whether  the  Reformers 
•-eived  any  new  ministerial  authority,  after 
e  withdrawal  of  that  which  they  had  received 
om  the  church  ? 

call  upon  him,  in  case  no  suck  new  authority 
as  received,  to  show  that  the  Protestant  clergy, 


2i*r 


so  called,  have  any  divine  ripht  to  exercise  the 
Christian  ministry,  more  then  other  educated 
laymen  1 
These  are  the  questions  by  which  the  touch- 
stone of  truth  will  be  applied  to  the  divinity  of 
the  Protestant  religion.     If  it  can  stand  this  test, 
you  will  gain  the  point,  but  if  no<,  it  will  be  im- 
possible to  conceal  the  deception. 

Let  Princeton,  and  all  the  clergr  set  about  the 
solution  of  these   difficulties;   wlich  stand  be- 
tween the  Protestant  Religion  and  the  Religion 
of  Christ.     They  are  too  well  fomded,  as  you 
cannot  but  know,  in  the  principle  of  Christian 
theology  to  be  overturned  by  ridicfl*.     You  can- 
not take  them  up  one  after  anotherknd  give  that 
unequivocal  reply,  which  would  safety  any  mind 
seriously  disposed  to  inquire  for  thl  truth.     And 
as  long   as  you  will  not  attempt  t,  then  they 
stand,  cutting  short  the  claims  of    j  Protestant 
Religion  to  be  what  you  said  it  \i  ;  the  Reli- 
gion of  Christ.     To  allow  you  tirri  to  ruminate 
on  these  difficulties  of  your  positioi  [  shall  now 
proceed  to  show  that  the  fioctrine    the  Eucha- 
rist as  held  in  the  Catholic  Church,!  an  integral 
part  of  the  Christian  Religion  ;  andhat  Protes- 
tants in  rejecting  it,  have  deprived  linselves  of 
the  last  and  best  pledge  of  a  Reciter's  iove 
This  Sacrament,  which  by  Protests 
the  Lord's  Supper,  was  instituted  on 
•which  he  was  betrayed,  the  eve  of 
as  if  he  would  select  that  moment, 
sublime  exercise  of  his  Divine  chari  _ 
otence.     Is  it  then  an  article  of  Christ!  Revela- 
tion that  the  body  and  blood  of  ChriL-e  con- 
tained in  the  Catholic  Sacrament  of  ^Eucha- 
rist ]     This  is  the  question;  for  as  to  mnystert/ 
of  doctrine  it  is  not  greater  than  thoseUhe  In- 
carnation,  Trinity,   or   Deity    of   Jesijphrist 
Has  it  been  revealed  ]     In  answer  to 
tion  we  will  have  to  examine  the  evide 
It  is  remarkable,  that  among  Protest; 
sects  whose  founders  had  never  been 
the  order  of  Priesthood  in  the  Catholi 
were  the  most  disposed  to  reject  the 
Christ's    presence    in    the    Eucharist 
maintained  this  doctrine  till  his  death  . 
bishops  and  clergy  of  the  English  Go»nent 
Church,    maintained,   or  at  least  prete!]    t„ 
maintain  it,  in  like  manner.     Whereas  Kin, 
who,  though  brought  up  a  Catholic,  wit  a 
Priest,  rejected  it  from  the  first,  consci^hat 
the  priestly  ordination  was  necessary  to  co: 
the  species.     Still,  Rev.  Sir,  even  in  y 
byterian  Confession  of  Faith,  which  ha 
"amended"  since  the  year  1821,  there  i 
mystery  and  much  to  impress  upon  the  ur 
communicant  an  idea  that  he  is  receiving 
thino-  more  than  mere  bread  and  wine.  "  O 
Jesus,  in  the  night  wherein  he  was  betray 
,      stituted  the  Sacrament  of  his  body  and  blood 
(page   124.)  "  Worthy  receivers,  outward 
takers  of  the  visible  elements  in  this  Sacr 
do  then  also  inwardly  by  faith,  really  and  i 
yet  not  carnally  and"  corporally,  but  spiri 
receive  and  feed  upon  Christ  crucified,  an! 
benefits  of  his  death  :  the  body  and  blood  of  ' 


is  called 

i  night  on 

passion, 

|the  most 

pmnip 


ques- 


being  then  not  corporally  or  carnally  in,  with,  or 
under  the  bread  am*  wine ;  yet  as  really,  but  spi- 
ritually, present  to  the  faith  of  believers  in  that 
ordinance,  as  the  elements  are,  to  their  outward 
senses."     (Page  127-8.) 

On  the  same  page  it  is  said,  that  unworthy  re- 
ceivers »  are  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord  to  their  own  damnation" — and  that  with- 
out great  sin  they  "  cannot  partake  of  these  holy 
mysteries.'''' 

Here  then  is  a  strange  compound  of  double- 
meaning  language  "outward  elements" — "body 
and  blood  of  Christ"— "  spiritual  feeding"— "  not 
discerning  the  body  of  the  Lord"— "holy  myste- 
ries"— connected  with  what?  With  the  belief 
of  a  real  presence 1  not  at  all ;  but  with  a  piece 
of  bread  and  a  cup  of  wine,  over  which  'an  unau- 
thorised minister  has  pronounced  an  abortive 
benediction ! !  The  blessing  flf  the  minister  pro- 
duces no  change  whatever,  and  if  I  understand 
the  language  of  your  creed,  the  bread  and  wine, 
received  with  the  same  dispositions  any  where, 
are  as  much  the  Sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,  as  they  are  after  a  fruitless  and  inopera- 
tive blessing  in  the  Presbyterian  church  or  meet- 
ing-house. '  The  communicant  is  taught  thai  he 
receives  nothing  but  bread  and  wine ;  and  yet, 
that  in  being  guilty  of  bread  and  wine,  he  is  guilty 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  for  not  discern- 
ing what  has  no  existence,  viz  :  the  body  of  the 
Lord  in  bread  and  wine  ! !  What  is  the  meaning 
then  of  all  this  strange  language?  This  affecta^ 
tion  of  a  real  presence,  with  the  simultaneous  de- 
nial of  it,  and  the  positive  doctrine  of  a  real  ab- 
sence. But  take  it  altogether,  I  find  it  quite  as 
unintelligible  as  the  Catholic  dogma  of  the  Eu- 
charist. 

The  same  kind  of  mysterious  double-meaning 
hangs  round  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine  of 
all  the  other  Protestant  denqminations.  The 
people  generally,  imposed  upon,  by  this  lan- 
guage, have  a  vague  idea,  in  spite  of  their  teach- 
ers, that,  in  receiving  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  they  receive  something  more  than  mere 
bread  and  wine. 

When  the  Reformation,  as  it  is  called,  of  the 
16lh  century  set  about  rending  the  seamless  and 
unbroken  garment  of  tht  Church,  (which  amidst 
the  corruptions  of  the  age,  the  vices  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  scandals  of  degenerate  ecclesiastics, 
still  preserved  the  "  one  Lord,  one  faith,  and  one 
baptism,"  which  she  had  received  from  her  divine 
founder,)  the  work  of  sacrilege  was  carried  on 
with  such  daring  irregularity,  that  even  the  form 
of  "casting  lots"  was  dispensed  with.  Luther 
first  raised  the  standard  of  error;  and  set  the 
whole  Christian  world  at  shameless  defiance. 
His  example  and  doctrines  encouraged  others  to 
bolder  innovations  ;  and  it  was  not  long  after  his 
attempt  to  drag  the  Pope,  from  the  seat  of  his  spiri- 
tual supremacy,  when  a  brother  Reformer  under- 
took, by  a  similar  license  to  drag  the  Saviour  of 
the  world  from  the  throne  of  his  divinity.  But 
the  denial  of  the  real  presence,  had  escaped  the 
father  of  the  Reformation,  and  was  reserved  for 
tire    ijinous    or   rather    infamous    Carlostadius. 


217 


He  began  by  teaching  that  when  Christ  said, 
"  this  is  my  body,"  he  pointed  to  himself  as  lie 
sat  at  the  table  ;  and  not  to  the  eucharistic  spe- 
cies which  he  gave  to  the  Apostle3.  On  this,  he 
quarrelled  with  Luther;  married  a  woman  ;  made 
war  on  education;  joined  himself  tor  a  time  to 
the  fanatical  Ana-baptists  under  Nicholas  Stork  ; 
wandered  -about  through  Germany  for  several 
years,  and  finally  died  at  Basle  in  1541.  Me- 
lancthon describes  him  as  an  impious  and  brutal 
fellow,  and  testifies  that  he  broached  this  error, 
out  of  jealousy  and  hatred  of  Luther.  (In  Epist. 
ad  Mycon.)  Zuinglius  embraced  the  doctrine 
of  Carlostadius,  and  fought  the  battles  of  his 
patty  against  the  "  Ecclesiastes  of  Wittemburg," 
with  great  fury  and  success.  Hence  it  was  that 
Luther  declared  by  way  of  funeral  oration  on 
his  brother  Reformer ;  "  Zuinglius  is  dead  and 
damned,  having  desired  like  a  thief  and  a  rebel 
to  compel  others  to  follow  his  error,"  viz :  the 
denial  of  the  real  presence  in  the  Eucharist.  In 
fact  Zuinglius  draws  a  terrible  character  of  him- 
self. "  I  cannot,"  says  he,  "  conceal  the  fire  that 
burns  me,  and  drives  me  on  to  incontinence,  since 
it  is  true  that  its  effects  have  already  drawn'  on 
me  but  too  many  infamous  reproaches  among  the 
churches."  (In  Parenses.  ad  Helvet.  Tom.  1.  d. 
113.) 

The  controversy  about  the  real  presence  be- 
tween the  Lutherans  and  Zuinglians  was  in  this 
fervid  condition  when  a  new  personage  made  his 
appearance  on  the  theatre  of  the  Reformation. 
John  Cauvin,  or  Calvin,  born  in  1509,  and  in- 
structed in  Protestantism  by  his  teacher  of  Greek, 
Wol mar,  was  destined  to  throw  Zuinglius  in  the 
shade,  and  to  rival  if  not  eclipse  the  great  Lu- 
ther himself.  He  published  the  text  book  of 
Calvinism,  called  the  "Institutions,"  at  Basic, 
near  the  grave  of  Carlostadius.  He  denied  the 
"real  presence."  Becoming  master  at -Geneva, 
his  disciples  denied  it  also — for  Calvin  was  a 
man  whose  infallibility  was  not  to  bs  disputed, 
except  at  the  risk  of  the  stake  and  faggot.  It 
was  from  Geneva  that  the  church  of  England 
derived  her  present  doctrine  on  the  eucharist, 
during  the  golden  days  of  her  "  Calvinistic  arti- 
cles" to  which  Doctor  Miller  alluded,  as  quoted  in 
a  former  letter,  with  such  triumphant  rei'erence — 
telling  us  that  they  (the  Calvinistic  articles)  had 
kept  the  English  church  almost  pure,  for  nearly  one 
hundred  years.  Wise  men,  however,  sometimes 
see  the  same  objects  in  very  different  aspects. 
Bishop  Bancroft,  in  reference  to  the  same  Cal- 
vinistic derivation  of  doctrine,  says,  "  Happy,  a 
thousand  times  happy  our  island,  if  neither  English 
or  Scot  had  ever  put  foot  in  Geneva,  if  they  had 
never  become  acquainted  with  a  single  individual 
of  these  Genevese  Doctors."  (Survey  of  pretend- 
ed Holy  Discipline.) 

Here  then  is  the  course  and  brief  history  of  the 
Protestant  doctrine — rejecting  the  real  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  eucharist.  From  America  we 
trace  it  to  England;  from  England  to  Ceneva; 
from  Geneva  to  Basle  ;  from  Switzerland  to  Ger- 
many, where,  according  to  Melancthon,  it  originat- 
ed with   the   "brutal   fellow"    Carlostadt,   who 


broached  it  ouiof  pure  hatred  to  Luther..  The 
circumstances  ruder  which  this  warfare  was 
commenced,  J  the  Black  Bear,  where  Luther 
lodged,  are  siiisgraceful  and  profane,  that  I 
shall  pass  thfi  over  in  silence.  The  curious 
reader  may  tfsult  the  recent  work  of  Thomas 
Moore,  chaptl  xlyi.  page  241,  where  the  refer- 
ences arc  gi*.  The  war  of  the  sacrament  be- 
ing once  declid  among  the  Reformers,  became  the 
source  of  defy  strife,  duplicity,  stratagem,  and 
intrigue  amc  r  the  belligerents.  "In  vain,"  says 
the  writer,  ti  'horn  I  have  just  referred,  "  did  Bu- 
cer  by  tricks  *d  evasions,  and  it  is  painful  to  add, 
Melancthon  sceeded  in  maintaining,  for  a  time  a 
false  andfe\pi  truce  between  the  parties.  But 
arts  so  gross  aid  not  long  continue  to  deceive;  all 
compromise  -s  found  to  be  hollow  and  hopeless, 
and,  at  last  e  three  great  eucharistic  factions, 
the  Luthera  Calvinistic,  and  Zuinglian,  all 
broke  loose  heir  respective  directions  of  heresy 
—each  bran  again  subdividing  itself  into  new 
factious  disitiqns,  under  the  countless  names 
of  Panarii,cidentarii,  Corporarii,  Anabonarii, 
Tropistos,  famorphistce,  Iscariotistce,  Schwen- 
kenfeldiansc.  &c.  &c.  till,  to  such  an  extent  did 
the  caprice  private  judgment  carry  its  freaks, 
on  this  osolemn  subject,  that  an  author  of 
Bellarminitime  counted  no  less  two  hundred 
different  rions  on  the  words,  "  This  is  my 
body."  It  the  Protestants  in  attempting  to 
escape  thhard  saying,"  which  gave  offence  to 
the  Caplnites,  found  themselves  unable  to 
agree  on  '  other  explanation.  Hence  the  du- 
plicity (he  language  in  which  it  is  ex- 
pressed iost  of  the  Protestant  formularies,  of 
which  yiConfession  as  amended  in  1821  furn- 
ishes noan  specimen. 

Protets  therefore  can  trace  their  doctrine  of 
the  sacrnt,  in  which  according  to  their  books, 
Christ  jsally  present,  and  really  absent  at  thol 
same  ti-as  far  back  as  1524  to  Carlostadt,  tof 
whom  Hgs  the  glory  of  having  originated  it/ 
Beyond,  all  believed  in  the  real  presence  c$ 
Christ  the  Eucharist.     You  have  been  bol/[ 
enough.  Sir,  in  utter  ignorance,  or  in  uttef 
conterff  Christian  antiquity  and  the  testimony 
of  innrable  writers,  to  assert  that  our  belief 
was  iiuced  in  the  13th  century,  A.  D.  1215. 
Even  >  however,  shows  that  it  was  the  gene- 
ral   i  for  300  years  before  the  Reformation 
Rut  If  see  whether  the  doctrine  had  not  beer 
belie  in  every  aire  from  the  days  of  Chrisl 
Nowfr.  Sir,  if  this  doctrine  of  the  Real  Pres- 
ence! transubstantiation,  be  "  as  young,"  \> 
V1se   °wn  language,  as  1215,  how  does  it  ha<- 
pen  Berengarius  wrote  against  it,  nearly  tvo 
nun  years  before  it  was  born  ?     How  doent 
hapthat  Scotus  Erigenus  had  written  agaiist 
it,  »e  reign  of  Charles  the  Bald,  some  wo 
hui'  years  before  Berengarius  1 — And  thatthe 
soivtical  held  it  before  their  separation  iom 
thiirch  in  the  0th  century— and  contime  to 
hq  to.  this  day1?     How  comes  it  that  the 
pian  Heretics  of  Jhe  7th  century  rejected 
tj-JStantiation,   if   as   you   learnedly   assert, 
u-bstantiation  was  not  known  in  the  church 


218 


fro- 


until  the  year  1215]     How  was  it  that  the  Mani- 
chseans  rejected  this  doctrine  in  the  3d  century] 
And  approaching  nearer  still  to  tie  pure  fountain 
of  Christian  faith,  how  is  it,  that  the  Gnostic  he- 
retics denied  it  in  the  very  first  age  of  the  church  ? 
These  heretics   professed    tp  believe    in   Jesus 
Christ,  and  his  doctrine,  propounded  by  their  pri- 
vate judgment.     They  hold  that  Jems  Christ  suf- 
fered only  in  appearance,  and  that  it  was  not  his 
real  flesh  but  a  fantastical  body,  vhich  suffered 
and   bled  on  the  cross.     It  seems  hat  they  also 
had  an  unaccountable  aversion  to  tb  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence  of  Jesus  Christ  in|ie  Eucharist, 
and  this  too,  if  we  may  believe  Mr.Jheckinridge, 
1200  years  before  that  doctrine  wa  introduced  ! 
St.  Ignatius  says  of  them  in  the  veriest  century 
"  they  abstain  from  the  Eucharist  afi  from  pray- 
er, because  they  do  not  acknowledged  Eucharist 
to  be  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  irist,  which 
suffered  for  our  sins,  and  which  theither  by  his 
goodness  resuscitated."     Rejecting  jerefore  this 
gift  of  God,  they  die  in  their  dispis.  (Ep.  ad 
Smyrn.  p.  36.  Tom.  ii.  P.  P.  Apostlmstelceda- 
mi  1724.)     Here,  the  father  makeSie  flesh  of 
our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  EuWist  to  be 
identically  the  same,  which  suffered  I  the  cross, 
and  arose  from  the  dead.    Jesus  Chriiad  equal- 
ly identified   his  flesh  in  both.     "Vis  is  my 
body,  which  is  given  for  you-  •••Thisimy  blood 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  shall  \  shed  for 
many.     It  was  not  bread  that  was  gi 
was  it  wine  that  was  shed  for  many. 
Gnostics  would  not  have  abstained  1 
testant  Eucharist  of  mere  bread  and  w 
is  nothing  in  it,  that  would  have  offe 
But  they  were  offended  at  the  Catholi 
of  the  real  presence  of  the  flesh  of  Chi  in  the 
sacrament.     It   clashed  with   their  hek   and 
therefore  they  abstained  from  it.     How  t  Rev. 
Sir,  could  you  have  exposed  yourself  soV  as  to 
assert  that  our  doctrine  on  this  subject  olnated 
in  the  13th  century,  when  even  the  wandlgs  of 
the  human  mind  in  the  mazes  of  heresy  dig-  all 
the  preceding  ages  of  the  church  prove  lexis- 
tence  from  the  very  origin  of  Christian!  and 
since  it  is  known  to  every  man  acquainkvith 
ecclesiastical  history  that  in  rejecting  it,V]0s- 
tadt  only  renewed  the  errors  of  the  Docland 
other  branches  of  the  Gnostic  heresy  broachmd 
branded  in  the  Apostolic  age  itself.     To  ihe 
resy  we  are  indebted  for  the  evidence  thus  fish 
ed  of  the  primitive  belief  of  the  real  pre 
Christ  in  the  mystery  of  the  Eucharist, 
must  be  heresies,"  said  the  Apostle  "  th 
also  who  are  approved  among  you  may  b 
manifest."  (1  Cor.  xi.  19.) 

To  the  same  cause  we  are  indebted,  for  a 
brilliant  but  apparently  accidental  testimo! 
the  second  century.     St.  Irenseus  who  was 
ed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Redeemer,  by  St. 
carp,  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  uses  the  rea 
sence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  as  an  argi 
against  other  heretics  of  his  time,  who  denie 
resurrection  of  the  flesh.  He  compares  it  witl 
manner  in  which  the  vine  and  wheat  are  prop 
ed,  to  furnish  the  matter  of  the  Eucharist  b 


neither 
iw  these 
he  Pro- 
There 
them. 
>ctrine 


>A  of 


the  consecration."  And  as,  says  ha,  a  section  of 
the  vine  laid  in  the  earth  produces  fruit  in  due 
season,  and  in  like  manner  the  grain  of  corn  is 
multiplied,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  which  after- 
wards is  used  for  the  benefit  of  man,  and  receiv- 
ing on  it  the  word  of  God,  becomes  the  Eucharist, 
which  is  the  body  and  Mood  of  Christ .-  so  our  bo- 
dies, nourished  by  that  Eucharist,  and  then  laid 
in  the  earth,  and  dissolved  in  it,  shall,  in  due  time 
rise  again."  (Iren.  Adver.  Har.  L.  V.  c.  11.  p.  395, 
397,  399.)  Tertullian  in  like  manner,  says  "  our 
flesh  is  fed  with  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
that  the  soul  may  be  nourished  with  God."  (De 
Resurrectione  Carnis,  chap.  viii.  p.  569.)  In  the 
3d  century,  Origen  speaking  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
church,  says,  "In  former  times,  baptism  was  ob- 
scurely represented  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea ; 
hut  now  regeneration  is  in  kind,  in  water  and 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Then,  obscurely,  manna  was 
the  food ;  but  now  in  kind,  the  flesh  of  the  word 
of  God  is  the  true  food;  even  as  he  said,  my  flesh  is 
meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed."  (Horn, 
vii.  in  Num.  Tom.  ii.  p.  290.) 

In  the  4th  century  among  a  hos£  of  others,  take 
St,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem :  "  the  bread  and  wine, 
says  he,  which  before  the  invocation  of  the  adora- 
ble Trinity,  were  nothing  but  bread  and  wine, 
become,  after  this  invocation  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ."  (Catech  Mystag.  L.  N.  4.  p.  281.) 
Shall  I  multiply  these  quotations  ]  It  is  unneces- 
sary, but  I  will  give  you  the  testimony  of  the 
great  first  Reformer  himself  to  show  the  "  unani- 
mous consent  of  the  fathers."  on  the  subject  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  to  show  the  extent  of  the  delusion 
under  which  Protestants,  and  perhaps  their  min- 
isters, labour  when  they  ascribe  the  origin  of  this 
doctrine  to  your  famous  epoch,  "  1215." 

He  is  defending  his  own  opinion  against  those, 
who,  making  use  of  the  liberty,  which  he  had 
promulgated,  of  expounding  the  Scriptures  by 
their  pwn  judgment,  denied  the  real  or  corporeal 
presence.  "That  no  one  among  the  Fathers," 
says  Luther,  "  numerous  as  they  are,  should 
have  spoken  of  the  Eucharist,  as  these  men  do, 
is  truly  astonishing.  Not  one  of  them  speaks 
thus  :  there  is  only  bread  and  wine  ■  or,  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  not  present.  And,  when 
we  reflect  how  often  the  subject  is  treated  and 
repeated  by  them,  it  ceases  to  be  credible ;  it  is 
not  even  possible  ;  that,  not  so  much  as  once, 
such  words  as  these  should  have  dropped  from 
some  of  them.  Surely  it  was  of  moment  that 
men  should  not  be  drawn  into  error.  Still,  they 
all  speak  with  such  precision,  evincing  that  they 
entertained  no  doubt  of  the  presence  of  the  body 
and  blood !  Had  not  this  been  their  conviction, 
can  it  be  imagined  that,  among  so  many,  the' 
negative  opinion  should  not  have  been  uttered  on' 
a  single  occasion  1  On  other  points  this  was  not 
the  case.  But  our  sacramentarians,  on  the  other 
hand,  can  proclaim  only  the  negative  or  contrary 
opinion.  These  men,  then,  to  say  all  in  one- 
word,  have  drawn  their  notions  neither  from  the 
Scriptures  nor  the  Fathers."  (Defensio  verbo- 
rum— Ccenae,Tom.  VIII.  p.  391.  Edit.  Wittemb. 
1557.)      i 


£10 


Such  is  the  testimony  of  Martin  Luther,  who 
elsewhere  speaks  of  the  Eucharist  as  the  "adora- 
ble Sacrament."  He  tried  with  all  his  might 
to  discard  this  belief,  chiefly,  as  he  tells  us*  be- 
cause by  so  doing  he  should  greatly  vex  the 
Pope.  "  If  Carlostadt,  or  any  one  else,  says 
he,  could  five  years  ago  have  convinced  me,  that 
in  the  sacrament  there  is  nothing  but  bread  and 
wine,  he  had  wonderfully  obliged  me  !  For  with 
great  anxiety  did  I  examine  this  point,  and  la- 
bour with  all  my  force  to  get  clear  of  the  diffi- 
culty ;  because  by  this  means  I  very  well  know 
that  I  should  terribly  incommode  the  Papacy. 
But  I  find  I  am  caught  without  hopes  of  escap- 
ing. For  the  text  of  the  Gospel  is  so  clear  and 
strong,  that  it  will  not  easily  admit  of  a  miscon- 
struction." (Epist.  ad  Amic.  Argia.  Tom.  7.  p. 
502.  Witt.  Ed.) 

What  is  this  text  of  the  Gospel  by  which  Lu- 
ther "  found  himself  caught  without  hopes  of  es- 
caping?" We  may  suppose  in  the  first  place 
the  language  of  St.  Paul,  who  received  his  doc- 
trine of  the  Eucharist  by  a  special  revelation 
from  Jesus  himself,  after  the  ascension ;  which 
would  have  been  unnecessary  if  it  merely  taught 
him  the  Protestant  mystery,  viz :  that  bread  and 
wine,  are  bread  and  wine.  He  taught  that  men 
by  the  unworthy  reception  of  the  sacrament  were 
guilty  of  judgment,  or  damnation  to  themselves  ; 
"  not  discerning  the  body  of  the  Lord."  (1  Cor.  x. 
16,  and  following  verses.)  Now  if  the  body  of 
Christ  was  not  in  the  Sacrament,  how  could  men 
«  discern"  it  there  ?  Again  it  is  to  be  admitted 
that  Jesus  Christ  would  not  be  guilty  of  dupli- 
city in  the  teaching  of  his  doctrines.  When, 
after  the  miraculous  multiplication  of  the  loaves 
and  fishes,  he  introduced  (John  vi.)  the  doctrine 
of  the  bread  from  heaven,  even  his  own  flesh  and 
blood,  to  be  miraculously  multiplied  for  the  life 
of  the  world,  the  Protestants  Who  heard  him, 
were  scandalised  ;  they  exclaimed  then,  as  they 
exclaim  still,  "  this  is  a  hard  saying,  and  who 
can  hear  it.... and  many  of  them  then,  as  now  on 
account  of  it,  "  went  back  and  walked  no  more 
with  him."  He  declared  that  he  would  give 
them  his  flesh  to  eat;  they  understood  him  to 
mean  his  flesh ;  and  in  the  unbelieving  spirit  of 
Protestantism  they  inquire  "how  can°this  man 
give  us  his  flesh  to  eat."  This  was  the  moment 
for  the  Son  of  G<*1  to  have  undeceived  them,  by 
telling  them  that  he  did  not  mean  his  flesh,  but 
merely  some  bread  and  wine.  This  doctrine 
would  not  have  surprised  them.  But  instead  of 
softening  it,  by  explanation,  he  confirmed  the  first 
declaration  by  adding  "Amen,  Amen,  I  say  unto 
you  ;  unless  you  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man, 
and  drink  his  blood,  you  shall  not  have  life  in 
you.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my 
blood,  hath  everlasting  life  :  and  I  will  raise  him 
up  at  the  last  day.  For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed ; 
and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.  He  that  eateth 
my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  abideth  in  me, 
and  I  in  him,"  (verses  54,  55,  50,  57.)  Now  if 
those  Protestant  disciples  who  were  scandalized 
at  this  language  of  our  Lord,  had  misunderstood 
his  meaning,  was  he  not  bound  to  remove  from 


their  minds  the  erroneous  impression  which  his 
own  words  had  produced  ?  Did  he  use  this  lan- 
guage to  drive  them  away  from  him?  Did  he, 
Who  Would  leave  the  ninety-nine  in  the  desert  to 
go  after  the  one  which  had  been  lost ;  did  he,  I 
say,  banish  the  sheep  already  in  the  fold,  from 
the  pastures  of  life,  by  spea"king  of  "  flesh  and 
blood,"  (to  be  communicated  in  a  mysterious 
manner  which  as  yet  he  had  not  revealed,)  and 
allowing  them  to  understand  "flesh  and  blood," 
if  he  meant  only  "  bread  and  wine  ?"  Protes- 
tants are  obliged  to  admit  that  he  did  ;  and  this 
admission,  so  injurious  to  the  character  of  Jesus 
Christ,  is  the  first  implement  borrowed  by  the 
Deists  to  sap  the  foundations  of  Christianity. 
If  Christ's  meaning  had  been  that  which  Carlos- 
tadt invented  for  the  Protestants,  would  he  not 
have  removed  or  explained  the  difficulty  about 
"  giving  his  flesh  to  eat,"  instead  of  confirming 
it,  with  the  emphasis  of  repeated  and  solemn  af- 
firmation? Would  he  not  have  said,  "Amen, 
Amen,  I  say  unto  you,  unless  you  eat  the  bread 
of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  tuine,  you  shall 
not  have  life  in  you.  He  that  eateth  my  bread 
and  drinketh  my  wine  hath  everlasting  life  :  and 
I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  For  my 
bread  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  wine  is  drink  in- 
deed. He  that  eateth  my  bread  and  drinketh  my 
wine,  abideth  in  me  and  I  in  him."  If  he  had  said, 
or  meant  thl,  we  should  not  have  heard  of  those 
Protestant  dsciples  "who  went  back  and  walked 
no  more  with  him."  In  almost  every  verse  of  the 
chapter  he  reproaches  them,  not  for  misunder- 
standing his  words,  but  for  the  want  of  belief. 
But  they  would  have  misunderstood  him,  if  his 
meaning  had  been  bread  and  wine,  and  in  that 
case  too  W3  are  unable  to  conceive  how  faith  is 
necessary,  to  believe  that  bread  and  wine,  are 
bread  and  wine.  He  spoke  of  his  flesh  and 
blood ;  he  meant  his  flesh  and  blood ;  all  that 
heard  him,  understood  him  to  have  spoken  of 
his  flesh  aid  blood  ;  and  when  the  Protestants  of 
that  day  frightened  by  the  "how  can  this  man 
give  us  his  flesh  to  eat,"  "  went  back  and  walked 
no  more  tvith  him ;"  he  turned  to  the  twelve  and 
"  said  to  them,  will  ye  also  go  away?"  And  Si- 
mon Peter  answered  him  (in  the  name  of  all) 
Lord  to  whom  shall  we  go?  thou  hast' the  words' 
of  eternil  life.  And  we  have  believed,  and  have/ 
known  that  thou  art  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the 
living  £od."  (68,  69,  70.)  Peter  understood 
the  mistery  of  the  Eucharist  proposed  in  this  di 
course  of  Christ,  as  little  as  the  rest,  but  he 
lieved,  is  Catholics  do,  that  Christ  could  not 
ceive,-  and  therefore  he  withstood  the  "horn 
commm-sense  interpretation,  lauded  by  my  ReJ 
opponant,  and  urged  with  great  plausibil' 
against  Jesus  Christ  himself,  by  the  Protest^ 
of  Capharnaum. 

Wiat  was  spoken  in  this  chapter,  is  acti 
acconplished  in  the  institution  of  the 
euchirist.  "  And  whilst  they  were  at  suj 
Jesu;  took  bread,  and  blessed  and  brokeJ 
gave  to  his  disciples  ;  and  said  ;  Take  yj 
eat,  This  is  my  body.  And  taking  the! 
lice  he  gave  thanks;    and  gave   to   then/ say- 


sao 


ing :  Drink  ye  all  of  this.  For  this  is  my  blood 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  shall  be  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  (Math.  xxvi. 
26,  27,  28.)  "  And  whilst  they  were  eating, 
Jesus  took  bread  and  blessing  broke,  and  gave  to 
them,  and  said  :  Take  ye,  this  is  my  body.  And 
having  taken  the  chalice,  giving  thanks,  he  gave 
it  to  them  and  they  all  drank  of  it.  And  he  said 
to  them  :  "This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  shall  be  shed  for  many.''''  (Mark  xiv. 
22,  23,  24.)  "  And  taking  bread  he  gave  thanks, 
and  brake,  and  gave  to  them  saying :  This  is 
my  body  which  is  given  for  you  :  Bo  this  for  a 
commemoration  of  me.  In  like  manner  the  cha- 
lice also,  after  he  had  supped,  saying :  this  is  the 
chalice,  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood,  which 
shall  be  shed  for  you.'"  (Luke  xxii.  19,  20.) 
"  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord,  that  also 
which  I  delivered  to  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,\took  bread,  and 
giving  thanks,  broke,  and  said;  take  ye  and  eat : 
This  is  my  body  which  shall  be  delivered  for  you  : 
do  this  for  a  commemoration  of!  me.  In  like 
manner  also  the  chalice,  after  hi  had  supped, 
saying :  This  chalice  is  the  New  Testament  in 
my  blood :  this  do  ye,  as  often  as  you  shall  driak 
it,  for  a  commemoration  of  me.  Fpr  as  often  as 
you  shall  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  chalice, 
you  shall  show  forth  the  death  of  the  Lord,  till 
he  come.  Wherefore  whosoever  shall  eat  this 
bread  or  drink  this  chalice  of  the  Lor«  unworthily 
shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  bloodof  the  Lord. 
But  let  a  man  prove  himself,  and  so  Ut  him  eat  of 
that  bread  and  drink  of  the  chalice.  kFor  he  that 
eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eatetl  and  drink- 
eth  judgment  to  himself,  not  discerning  the 
Lord's  body."  (1,  Cor.  xi.  23,  34,  25,^6,  27,  28, 
29.) 

Now  according  to  the  Protestant  doctine  of  the 

eucharist,  whenever  the  word  "  body  aid  blood" 

occurs  in   these  passages,  we  are  to  Understand 

"  bread  and  wine."     Consequently,  siqee  Christ 

spoke    of  the  chalice  as   of  the  "  bloWl,  which 

was  to  be   shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of 

sins,"  we  are  to  understand  that  we  mve  been 

redeemed  by  the  giving  of  bread  and  the  shedding 

of  wine.     There  is  no  escaping  this  consequence, 

on    the    Protestant    principle.      Having  shown 

above  that  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  theleuchar- 

ist,  denying  the  real  presence,  originated  in  the 

hatred  and  jealousy  which  the  fame  of  Luther, 

roused  in  the  breast  of  his  would-be  rival,  Carlos- 

tadt,  (as    Melancthon  testifies,) — having  tehown 

by  the  testimony  of  the  holy  Fathers,  tnat  the 

Catholic  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  was  held  by 

he  church,  and  rejected  by  the  heretics  of  the  first 

Te — that  is  1 200  years  before  >he  date  assigned  by 

r.  Breckinridge — I  shall  allude  briefly  to  thiruin- 

>  bearing  which  the  Protestant  euchariat  has 

the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  whole  system 

Christianity. 

Of  all  the  wonders  operated  by  Jesus  ii  the 

ution  of  his  religion  the  only  one  which  a 

creature  deputed  by  God  could  not  acqpm- 

is  that  which  subsists  in  the  real  preseice, 

eucharist.    This  doctrine  then  is  the  shield 


of  his  divinity.  He  might  have  accomplished 
all  the  miracles  that  Protestants  believe  of  him, 
and  yet  be  nothing  more  than  what  the  Socinians 
represent ; — but  to  accomplish  the  miracle  which 
we  contemplate,  not  with  the  eye  of  the  body, 
but  with  the  eye  of  faith,  in  the  mystery  of  the 
holy  eucharist — he  must  have  been  God.  To 
creatures  deputed  by  God,  some  power  was  given, 
but  to  Christ  all  power  both  in  heaven  and  on 
earth — and  it  was  in  the  eucharist  alone  that  this 
all  power  was  exercised.  This  connexion  be- 
tween the  real  presence  in  ^he  eucharist,  and  the 
Divinity  of  "  the  word,"  was  quoted  by  St.  Irenaj- 
us  in  the  2d  century.  (Adv.  Hor.  L.  4.  c.  18.  No. 

2.  Jesus  Christ  must  have  foreseen  the  terrible 
consequence  of  the  language  he  made  use  of  in 
reference  to  the  eucharist.  He  must  have  fore- 
seen the  error,  into  which  his  immediate  disci- 
ples were  about  to  fall,  and  which  was  to  be  en- 
tailed on  the  church  until  the  coming  of  Andreas 
Carlostadius — who  to  reform  the  church,  merely 
invented  a  new  gesture  for  Christ,  making  him 
point  to  his  own  breast,  when  he  said  "  this  is 
my  body."  Did  Christ  foresee  this  supposed 
error  of  the  real  presence  1  If  he  did,  it  being 
founded  on  his  own  express  words,  he  was  bound 
by  his  promise  to  the  church  (Math,  xxyiii.  19.) 
to  prevent  it  becoming  general : — if  he  did  not 
foresee  it — then  goes  his  divinity  by  the  board. 
When  the  Unitarians  urge  this  argument,  how 
can  the  other  Protestants  answer  it  1 

3.  The  Apostles  warned  the  Christians  of  fu- 
ture errors,  such  as  the  denial  of  the  reality  of 
the  flesh  of  Christ,  his  divinity,  and  the  resurrec- 
tion, &c.  But  against  the  supposed  error  of  the 
real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  which 
according  to  the  acknowledgment,  of  eminent 
Protestants  was  believed  from  the  second  cen- 
tury, they  take  no  precaution ;  though  according 
to  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  bread  and  wine,  it 
changed  the  Religion  of  Christ  into  a  religion  of 
impiety. 

4.  According  to  the  Protestant  hypothesis,  the 
Religion  of  Christ  became  the  falsest  religion  of 
earth,  and  what  he  preached,  was  perverted  into 
a  system  of  idolatry  almost  immediately  after  his 
ascension  into  heaven.  Did  the  eternal  Son  of 
God,  become  man,  to  establish  %  religion  so  short- 
lived, so  degenerate,  and  so  idolatrous  as  this 
supposes.  Christians  adored  Christ's  body  in 
the  Eucharist;  and  if  the  Eucharist  were  mere 
bread  and  wine  ;  it  follows,  that  from  the  begin- 
ning the  followers  of  the  cross  were  idolaters. 
Such  are  the  destructive  consequences,  if  the  Pro- 
testant doctrine  were  true. 

But  on.  the  other  hand,  admit  the  doctrine  of 
the  church — bend  the  stubborn  neck  of  what  you 
call  "  honest  common  sense  interpretation,"  to 
the  yoke  of  faith,  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
love  to  design  and  omnipotence  to  accomplish 
what  he  declared— this  is  my  body— this  is  my 
blood — and  you  will  escape  the  horrible  conse- 
quences of  the  Protestant  system.  Then  you 
will  recognise  "the  hidden  manna,"  in  the  sacra- 
ment,—the  wisdom  of  God,  in  mystery.    Then 


\ 


221 


you  will  understand  the  meaning  of  "Christ,  a 
Priest  forever  according-  to  the  order  of  Melchesi- 
dec."  Then  you  will  understand  the  connexion 
between  this  priesthood — communicated  at  the 
last  supper,  "  do  this  for  a  commemoration  of 
me," — and  the  "  altar  of  which  they  have  no 
•ight  to  eat  who  serve  the  tabernacle  ,•" — you  will 
jerceive  the  "  clean  offering,"  from  the  rising  to 
;he  setting  of  the  sun,  among  the  Gentiles,  as 
oretold  by  Malachy,  (i.  10,  11,)  and  in  the  sacri- 
ice  of  the  mass,  the  death  of  the  Lord,  in  the 
anguage  of  St.  Paul,  shown  forth  till  he  come." 
rhen  you  will  find  your  faith  according  with  the 
anguage  and  institution  of  Christ,  the  apostle  of 
he  Gentiles,  the  apostolical  fathers,  the  whole 
Christian  church  of  all  nations  and  ages,  except  a 
ew  straggling  sects  of  heretics  in  the  by-ways  of 
.ntiquity.  Then  order,  beauty,  consistency,  and 
tateliness  will  appear  in  the  edifice  of  christiani- 
y.  But  deny  the  Real  Presence,  and  it  will  ex- 
'erience  the  fate  of  Jerusalem — not  a  stone  shall 
e  left  upon  a  stone.  Protestant  Germany  at  the 
resent  day,  is  the  sad  proof  that  what  I  have  here 
sserted,  is  not  speculation,  but  history.  But  who 
an  believe  such  a  doctrine  ?  I  answer,  all  those 
r\io  deem  JesUs  Christ  worthy  of  belief.  That 
lfidels  should  disbelieve  it  does  not  surprise  me. 
>ut  I  cannot  understand  it  1  I  answer,  you  can 
nderstand  it  as  well  as  you  can  the  Trinity— or 
re  union  of  the  divine  and  human  nature  in  the 
erson  of  Jesus  Christ.  When  you  study  mathe- 
latics  you  reason — but  in  revelation  you  believe. 
fit  is  it  possible  that  Jesus  Christ  can  be  seated 
t  the  right  hand  in  heaven,  and  yet  be  whole  and 
utire  under  each  of  the  consecrated  hosts  in  the 
rorld  ?  I  answer,  Jesus  Christ  is  God— he  has 
lid  so,  and  therefore  it  is  possible,  and  infallibly 
jrtain.  But  think  of  the  indignities  to  which  he 
i  exposed  1  I  answer,  that  they  are  not  greater 
lan  those  which  he  suffered  when  he  was  sold 
y  his  disciple,  buffeted  and  spit  upon  by  his  peo- 
le,  scourged,  and  crucified.  His  body  in  the 
icrament  can  suffer  no  more — can  die  no  more 

is  the  glorified  body  of  the  cross,  still  offered 
p  to  perpetuate  the  sacrifice  of  Calvary  in  a  dif- 
rent  manner— to  "  show  forth  the  death  of  the 
ord  till  he  come."  But  if  an  insect  or  reptile 
msume  the  host  1  I  answer,  the  consequence  is 
)thing  more  horrible  than  if  an  insect  or  reptile 
rasumed  some  portion  of  the  adorable  blood 
hich  flowed  from  his  wounds  as  he  huno-  upon 
ie  cross.  But  if  arsenic  be  mixed  in  the  ele- 
ents  of  the  eucharist  they  still  remain  after  the 
msecration  1  I  answer,  that  Christ  appointed 
;ead  and  wine,  to  be  operated  on  by  the  words 

consecration— and  not  arsenic.  But  Mr.  Breck- 
ridge  says  that  this  doctrine  is  "  as  young-  as 
eyear  1215?  I  answer,  that  if  Mr.  Breckin- 
Jge  says  queer  things,  it  is  for  himself  and 
ose  who  sympathise  in  his  prejudices  to  see  to 
But  he  says  also  that  if  this  doctrine  be  true, 
b  cannot  believe  our  senses  1  I  answer,  that 
.  Ambrose  refuted  this  objection  1 100  years 
;o,  (De  Initiandis  cix.  Tom.  IV.  p.  350,  351  )_ 
ad  that  Mr.  B.  must  have  forgotten  both  his 
tural  philosophy  and  his  New  testament  when 


he  repeated  it.  The  senses  judge  only  of  appear- 
ances— and  wc  read  in  a  book  which  Protestants 
profess  to  respect  .that  the  Holy  Ghost  appeared 
in  the  shape  of  a  dove. 

There  is  no  end,  however,  to  objections.     Ob- 
jections against  the  real  presence,  the  Incarnation, 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  Trinity  of  per- 
sons in  the  Godhead,  and  the  immortality  of  the 
soul  are  equally  numerous,  and  equally  plausi- 
ble, if  that  every  thing  and  nothing   which  my 
Rev.  opponent  calls  "  honest,  common-sense  inter- 
pretation," is  to  be  the  arbiter  of  belief.     Who 
can  comprehend  any  of  them  1    There  are  never- 
theless one  or  two  objections  common  araono- 
Protestants  from  whom  we  might  expect  better 
things,  and  which  I  shall  here  notice  as  well  for 
their  want  of  truth,  as  their  want  of  decency. 
Catholics  are  represented  as  adoring  bread   and 
wine  in   the  Eucharist,  which  is  expressed   by 
calling  the  sacrament  a  "  wafer."    This  ungene- 
rous trick  of  our  opponents  is  unworthy  of  Chris- 
tians.    They  know  that  we  adore  no   "  wafer," 
that  our  adoration  is  directed  to  Jesus  Christ,  be- 
lieved to  be  truly  present  under  the  appearances  of 
bread  and  wine.     But  I  lament  to  have  read  in 
the  course  of  this  correspondence  the  expressions, 
"  that  we  make  our  God  and  eat  him,"  it  sounds 
like  the  buffoonery  of  Tom  Paine.    It  is  unworthy 
of  a  Christian  origin,  and  I  leave  it  even  to  sensible 
Protestants  whether  a  doctrine  resting  on  the  ar- 
guments of  this  letter  should  have  been  treated 
of  in  language  so  coarse,  and  so  indecent.     How 
many  gross  questions  may  not  the  infidels  ask 
touching  the  sacred  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  by 
imitating  the  licentious  pen  of  a  zealous,  but  in- 
discreet, polemic.      Such  language  shocks   the 
feelings,  but  does  not  touch  the  faith,  of  a  Catho-  ' 
lie  reader.     It  may  make  him  weep  to  s^e  Jesus 
Christ  insulted,  as  he  conceives,  on  the  sacrament 
of  his  love,  but  it  only  binds  him  more  intimately 
to  the  object  of  his  faith,  and  of  his  affection.    He 
knows  that  what  Protestant  incredulity  calls  "mak"-' 
mg  God,"  is  the  act  which  Christ  commanded. 
"  Do  this  for  a  commemoration   of  me."     He 
knows  that  what  Protestant  prejudice  or  indecen- 
cy calls  "  eating  God,"  is  the  act  of  religious 
obedience  to  him  who  said,  unless  you  eat  of  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood  you 
cannot  have  life  in  you,  and  who  said  in  like  man- 
ner "  take  ye,  and  eat,  this  is  my  body:' 

Now,  Rev.  Sir,  although  I  have  been  obliged 
to  pass  over  testimonies  sufficient  to  fill  a  volume, 
establishing  the  constant  belief  of  the  real  pres- 
ence in  the  eucharist,  still,  I  make  bold  to  assert 
that  all  the  ministers  in  America  cannot  furnish 
as  much  positive  evidence  from  all  the  docu- 
ments in  existence  in  support  of  the  mere  bread 
and  wine  of  the  Protestant  sacrament,  as  this  let- 
ter contains,  imperfect  as  it  is.  They  may  say 
that  the  word  "  signify"  is  not  found  in  the  He- 
brew, and  that  Christ  consequently  used  the 
words  "this  is"  instead  of  "this  signifies  myj 
body."  Zuinglius  actually  made  this  change  in 
the  text.  But  what  do  they  make  of  Jesus  Christ/ 
— when  they  represent  him  opening  the  door  tc 
supposed  error,  which  he  foresaw,  merely  because 


222 


the  Hebrew  was  a  jejune  language  !!  For  want 
of  a  suitable  expression,  the  Son  of  God  laid  the 
foundation  of  perennial  idolatry  in  his  church  !!! 
And  after  all  the  New 'Testament  was  written 
in  the  Greek  tongue,  not  the  Hebrew.  Truly 
Protestants  must  be  easily  satisfied  in  their 
doctrines.  They  may  say  that  the  Fathers  often 
applied  the  terms,  figure,  sign,  symbol,  antitype, 
bread  and  wine,  to  the  eucharist  even  after  conse- 
cration. It  is  true  they  applied  these  terms  to 
the  exterior  appearances — but  this  only  proves 
that  under  these  signs,  symbols,  &c.  they  believed 
the  substantial  existence  of  the  thing  signified, 
viz:  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  Hence 
none  were  allowed  to  participate  of  the  Eucharist 
who  did  not  first  "  adore."  All  the  ancient  li- 
turgies, heretical  as  well  as  Catholic,  with  the 
exception  of  some  few  sects,  contain  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Eucharist  as  it  is  believed  at  this 
day  in  the  Catholic  church.  That  pf  the  Apos- 
tles, those  of  St.  Basil  and  St.  John  Chrysostom, 
the  ancient  Gallican  liturgy,  the  Mozarabic,  the 
Nestorian,  the  Jacobite  of  Syria,  the  Copht,  the 
Ethiopian  are  all  identically  the  same  with  the 
Roman  Missal,  on  that  doctrine  which  you  have 
made  to  originate  in  the  13th  century  A.  D.  1215 
I  will  allow  any  gentleman  who  is  a  scholar,  and 
desirous  to  verify  what  I  assert  to  compare  them, 
at  my  house.     But  where  can  the  Protestant  doc- 


trine of  mere  bread  and  wine  find  testimony  to  sup- 
port if?  Would  to  God,  that  Protestants  would 
reflect  in  the  soberness  of  genuine  piety,  on  the 
mutilated  Christianity  which  their  fathers  in  the 
ardour  of  religious  strife  have  bequeathed  them. 
They  would  not  reject  the  substance  for  the  sha- 
dow as  they  have  done. 

However  you  have  to  prove  that  the  Protestant 
religion  is  the  religion  of  Christ,  and  perhaps 
you  have  furnished  yourself  by  this  time,  with 
the  long  expected  arguments.  You  have  closed 
your  last  letter  by  invoking  the  aid  of  Bishop 
Jewel,  and  quoting  a  list  of  requirements  which 
is  long  and  arrogant  enough.  But  you  should  re- 
collect that  his  Panegyrist  and  Biographer,  Dr. 
Humphreys  admits  that  the  good  Bishop  "  spoil- 
ed himself  and  his  cause"  by  the  boldness  of  his 
challenges.  It  might  have  been  well  if  you  had 
seen  this,  before  you  issued  yours.  Besides  Jew- 
el, on  his  death  bed,  directed  his  chaplain  to  make 
known  after  his  decease  "  that  what  he  had  writ- 
ten, he  had  done  against  his  own  knowledge  and 
conscience,  only  to  comply  with  the  state,  and 
that  religion  which  it  had  set  up."  (Dr.  Smith's 
Prudential  Ballance,  published  in  1609,  page  54.) 
In  appealing  to  the  Episcopalians,  then,  for  aid, 
you  might  have  made  a  happier  selection  than 
Bishop  Jewel.     Yours,  &c. 

John  Hughes. 


zt? 


CONTROVERSY N°.  28. 


Is  the  Protestant  SSeBigion  the  Itcfligioii  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  August  9th,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — You  complain  for  the  second  time,  in 
your  last  letter  that  I  have  "long  denied  you'''' 
the  title  of  "Rev'd  Sir."  I  assure  you,  it  was 
as  far  from  my  intention  to  rob  you  of  your  hon- 
ours, by  omitting  it,  as  it  is  now  to  flatter  your 
weakness  and  vanity,  by  inserting  it.  I  have 
uniformly  addressed  you  thus,  "the  Rev.  John 
Hughes  ;"  and  surely  the  repetition,  (in  imme- 
diate succession)  of  "  Rev'd  Sir,"  is  both  a  vio- 
lation of  good  taste,  and  a  useless  tautology.  I 
see,  however,  that  the  little  urchin  at  the  press 
who  attached  two  j"f 's  to  your  name,  in  my 
last  proof  sheet,  understood  your  wishes  better 
than  I  do.  But  I  would  respectfully  admonish 
you,  that  the  title  once  written,  frowns  upon  him 
"  who  seeks  honour  of  men  :"  and  that  it  is  not  on 
the  number,  or  magnificence  of  our  titles,  but  on 
the  spirit  with  which  we  fulfil  our  ministry,  that 
our  supreme  care  should  be  bestowed.  But  per- 
sonal arrogance  is  not  the  only  characteristic  of 
the  introduction  to  your  last  letter.  The  tone 
of  denunciation  and  bigotry  seems  to  rise,  as  the 
cause  you  advocate  sinks  ;  and  you  supply  the 
defect  of  argument,  with  the  increase  of  preten- 
sion. You  tell  us  "  that  no  Christians  agreed 
with  Protestants  in  doctrines,  from  the  days  of 
Christ  until  the  coming  of  Luther,  and  very  few 
since."  It  is  no  new  doctrine  with  your  Church 
to  consign  all  men,  out  of  her  communion,  to  eter- 
nal woe.  It  is  an  article  of  jour  creed,  that 
"none  can  be  saved,"  who  do  not  hold  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  faith :  and  "  the  Canon  Law," 
makes  it  "necessary  to  salvation  for  every  hu- 
man being  to  be  subject  to  the  Roman  PontifF." 
While  the  people  stand  amazed  at  the  unparalleled 
bigotry  and  intolerance  of  Romanism,  they  must 
at  least  approve  your  candour,  in  applying  these 
doctrines  to  the  unhappy  millions  of  American 
Protestants. 

That  this  is  the  universal  spirit  of  the  system, 
whenever  it  is  honestly  disclosed,  or  forced  out 
by  controversy,  may  readily  be  gathered  from  the 
monuments  of  the  Papacy  in  every  age  and  coun- 
try where  it  has  had  a  being.  Take  for  example 
the  notes  on  the  Rhemish  translation  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  text  is  the  same  with  the  New 
Testament  of  the  Doway  Bible,  lately  republish- 
ed in  this  country.  These  notes  have  been  pru- 
dently suppressed  in  that  edition.  The  follow- 
ing are  specimens.  Note  on  Heb.  v.  7.  "  The 
Translators  of  the  English  (Protestant)  Bible 
ought  to  be  abhorred  to  the  depths  of  Hell." 
Note  on  Gal.  i.  8.     Perverting  and  commending 


a  passage  from  Jerome,  they  say,  "the  zeal  of 
Catholic  men  ought  to  be  so  great  towards  all 
Heretics,  and  their  doctrines,  that  they  should 
give  them  the  anathema,  though  they  are  never 
so  dear  to  them ;  so  as  not  even  to  spare  their 
own  parents."  Luke  ix.  55,  56.  The  Samari- 
tans had  rejected  Christ;  and  the  indignant  dis- 
ciples asked  Him,  if  like  Elias  they  should 
"  command  fire  to  come  down  from  Heaven  and 
consume  them."  "But  he  turned  and  rebuked 
them,  and  said,  ye  know  not  what  manner  of 
spirit  ye  are  of;  for  the  Son  of  man  is  not  come 
to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them." 
On  these  passages,  and  in  direct  contradiction 
of  our  Lord,  the  commentary  remarks :  "  Not 
justice,  nor  all  rigorous  punishment  of  persons  is 
here  forbidden,  nor  Elias-'s  fact  (conduct)  repre- 
hended ;  nor  the  Church,  nor  Christian  Princes 
blamed  for  putting  Heretics  to  death."  Rev.  xvii 
6.  "  The  blood  of  Heretics  is  not  the  blood  of] 
Saints  ;  no  more  than  the  blood  of  thieves,  man- 
killers,  and  other  malefactors  ;  for  the  shedding 
of  which  blood  by  order  of  justice  no  common- 
wealth shall  answer."  Rev.  ii.  6,  20,  22.  "  Of 
all  things  Christian  people,  especially  Bishops, 
should  hate  Heretics,  that  is,  their  wicked  doc- 
trines and  conditions. As  Lutherans,  Zuing- 

lians,  &c,  &c.  "  He  (Christ)  warneth  Bishops 
to  be  zealous,  and  stout  against  the  false  Pro- 
phets, of  what  sort  soever,  by  alluding  covertly 
to  the  example  of  holy  Elias  that  in  zeal  killed 
four  hundred  and  fifty  false  Prophets."  John  x.  1. 
"  Arius,  Calvin,  Luther,  and  all  that  succeed  them 
in  room  and  doctrine,  are  thieves  and  murderers." 
Acts  xix.  19.  "A  Christian  man  is  bound  to 
burn  or  deface  all  wicked  books,  of  what  sort  so- 
ever ;  especially  heretical  books.  Therefore  the 
Church,  hath  taken  order  against  all  such  books." 

This  is  the  charity  of  Rome.  These  are  the 
doctrines  upon  oath,  of  every  Roman  Priest, 
whatever  be  the  honied  words  of  liberality  and 
love  which  distil  from  his  lips,  or  run  from  his 
ready  pen.  And  we  may  see  what  we  have  to 
hope  for  in  America,  if  by  the  skill  of  the  Je- 
suits, this  last  refuge  of  civil  and  religious  liberty 
shall  be  violated  and  controuled  by  the  Pope  of 
Rome. 

I  proceed  still  further  to  exhibit  the  grounds  of 
our  protest  against  the  doctrines,  corruptions,  eye. 
of  the  Church  of  Rome.     And,  <"""'>» 

I.  The  abounding  and  shocking  immoralities, 
either  tolerated  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  di- 
rectly produced  by  her  institutions. 

In  a  church  where  absolute  subjection  to  her 
supreme  head,  is  the.  very  touch-stone  of  ortho- 


( 


c«- 


221 


doxy. 


,  authority  cannot  be  wanting-  to  correct  and 
punish  vice.     By  a  single  act,  one  Pope  abolish- 
ed the  immense  power  of  the  Jesuits  ;  by  another 
act,  another  Pope  has  recently  revived  that  infa- 
mous order  in  all  its  force.     Authority  to  reform 
is  therefore  not  wanting.     And  yet,  as  I  have  in 
part  already  shown,  in  several  unanswered  letters 
the  church  of  Rome  had  become  so  corrupt  in  its 
morals  that  the  whole  world  was  crying  out  for 
several  ages,  for  a  Reformation.     This  too,  was 
not  a  temporary,  local,  or  partial  corruption.     It 
had  existed  for  ages  before  the  Reformation  :  it  was 
universal,  extending  to  all  parts  of  the  world,  and 
to  all  orders  in  the  church,  beginning  at  the  Popes 
and  Cardinals,  Bishops  and  Priests :  it  was  deep 
and  dreadful,  striking  at  the  foundation  of  morals  ; 
so  that  religion  lay  expiring  on  the  altar,  by  the 
hands  of  her  priests.     The  history  of  the  immo- 
ralities of  your  Popes,  Prelates  and  Priests  alone 
would   fill   a  volume.     We  give  (in  addition  to 
those  recorded   in  previous  letters)   only  a  few 
examples.     Erasmus  (Ann.   in.    Epis.  ad   Tim. 
c.  3)  writes  :   "  If  any  one  consider  the  state  of 
these  times,  how  great  a  part  of  mankind  the  mul- 
titude of  monks  take  up;  how  great  apart  the  colle- 
ges of  Priests  and  clergymen ;  and  then  consider 
1  how  few  out  of  so  great  a  number  truly  preserve 
J  chastity  of  life,  with  how  great  scandal  most  of 
1  them  are  openly  incestuous,  and  incontinent,  into 
I  what  kinds  of  lusts,  innumerable  of  them  degene- 
rate, he  will  perhaps  conclude   it   were  conveni- 
/  ent  that  those  who  are  not  continent,  may  have 
*   the  freedom  of  public  marriage,  which  they  may 
'    purely  and  chastely,  and  without  infamy,  main- 
t    tain."     Gerson  (De  vita  Spirit.  Animae  Lee.  4.) 
',    affirms  "that  unchaste  Priests  must  be  tolerated  or 
no  Priests  can  be  had."    Clemangis  (Ue  Corrupt. 
Eccl.  stat.  p.   15.)   writes  that  the  Priests  openly 
kept  concubines  at  a  stated  price  paid  to  the  Bishop. 
»    In    Germany   this   system    was   carried    so   far, 
j    that  the  licenses  to  do  so,  were  forced  even  upon 
j    those   who   did   not    wish    them,   that   the   tax 
;     might  not  be  lost;  and  in  Switzerland  QSleidan 
i    Com.  1.  3.)  every  new  Pastor  was  required  to  take 
\   a  concubine  that  he  might  not  endanger  the  fami- 
"  lies  of  his  charge.  The  Bishop  of  Saltzburg  (Onus 
Ecclesiac  chap.  22)  tells  us  that  "the  nunneries  in 
his  time  were  as  publicly  prostituted  as  the  com- 
"■"•mon  brothels."    Sunt  propatula  ut  ipsa  loca  vene- 
ris.    Thuanus  (a  Roman  Catholic  Historian,  B. 
37.  p.  766,  A.  D.  1566)  says,  that  when  Pope  Paul 
5th,  thought  of  putting  down  the  public  brothels  in 
Rome  and  expelling  the  courtezans  the  city,  the 
senate  of  Rome,  instigated  privately  by  the  clergy  in~ 
terceded  with  him  not  to  do  it ':  and  they  added  this 
reason,  that  if  such  a  crowd  of  unmarried  Priests 
»    were  left  in  the  city  without  these  evil  women,  it 
would  be  impossible  to  preserve  the  chastity  of 
their  families."     This   shocking  state  of  things 
among  the  Priests   of  the  Holy  .city  was  nearly 
half  a  century  after  the  Reformation  of  Luther 
ha°d  begun.     Nor  let  it  be  supposed  that  this  was 
done  without  approval.   It  was  defended  and  sus- 
tained by  example,  license,  and  even  by  publicly 
avowed  principle.     It  was  tolerated  when  reform 
was  called  for  from  every  throne,  and  from   all 


parts  of  the  world.  It  is  notorious  that  the  Pope 
of  Rome  licensed  brothels  and  built  stews  in  the 
city  of  Rome,  and  at  one  time  he  drew  from  them 
an  annual  revenue  of  20,000  ducats;  the  crowd 
of  such  women  in  the  keeping  of  the  priests  was 
immense  ;  and  the  revenue  collected  week  after 
week,  was  taken  from  the  chest  in  which  the 
price  of  iniquity  ivas  cast  and  divided  equally  be- 
tween the  houses,  the  women,  and  the  Popes! 
If  you  would  have  more  full  references,  they  are 
at  hand.  Bellarmine,  sustained  by  Coster,  Pighius, 
Cardinal  Hosius,  and  Cardinal  Campegius,  does 
not  hesitate  to  declare  "  that  it  is  a  greater  evil, 
(i.  e.  under  a  vow  of  celibacy)  so  to  marry  than  to 
commit  fornication.  Est  majus  malum  sic  nubere, 
quam  fornicari.  (Bel.  b.  2.  De  Monachis  c.  34.) 
and  the  reason  which  he  assigns  for  this  is  its  own 
best  comment,  viz.  "because  she  who  thus  mar- 
ries renders  herself  incapable  of  keeping  her  vow ; 
but  she  who  commits  fornication  is  not  incapable." 
Quia  quae  ita  nubit,  redditse  inhabilem  ad  votum 
servandum;  quod  non  facit,  quae  fornicatur.  I 
need  not  here  remind  you  of  the  incest  of  Paul  the 
3d,  the  sodomies  of  Julius  the  3d,  and  the  vile  com- 
merce of  Innocent  the  10th  with  his  brother's  wife, 
Otympia.  Abbott  Gualdi  pronounces  his  amours 
almost  without  a  parallel  for  scandal  and  illicit  love. 
John  Casa,  Archbishop  of  Beneventum  and  legate  of 
the  Pope,  published  an  apology  for  sodomy  ;  and 
Gualter  Mapes  complains  that  the  Priests  used  to 
suspend  the  salvation  of  females  at  confession,  upon  the 
condition  of  yielding  to  their  infamous  wishes  !  Hor- 
ror and  shame  alternately  possess  me  while  I  record 
these  enormities.  But  if  the  perusal  makes  us 
shudder  and  blush,  what  must  the  ■perpetration  of 
them  have  been! 

We  said  that  these  immoralities  were  in  part, 
produced  by  the  peculiar  institutions  of  the 
church.  We  alluded  to  the  monasteries,  nun- 
neries, vows  of  celibacy,  and  especially  the  celi- 
bacy of  the  clergy.  Strange  as  it  may  seem, 
these  institutions  and  vows,  were  professedly  es- 
tablished and  enforced  to  advance  piety,  and  se- 
cure purity  of  life.  But  in  this  as  in  most  cases 
where  men  attempt  to  be  wiser  than  God,  the  re- 
sult has  been  of  the  most  disastrous  character. 
We  would  not  be  understood  indiscriminately  to 
condemn  a  life  of  voluntary  celibacy.  "  Both  vir- 
ginity and  marriage  were  states  of  innocence,  and 
of  paradise.  Christ  has  consecrated  both,  having 
been  born  of  a  virgin,  and  yet  of  a  woman  who 
was  then  betrothed  and  afterwards  married." 
The  Council  of  Trent  not  only  encouraged  mo- 
nastic vows,  but  enforced  celibacy  on  the  clergy. 
This  is  both  a  novelty  and  an  innovation  in  the 
Church  of  God.  The  word  of  God  declares 
Heb.  xiii.  4.  "  that  marriage  is  honourable  in  ally 
The  church  of  Rome  on  the  contrary  forbids  it  to 
her  clergy.  The  word  of  God  declares  that  "  a 
bishop  must  be  the  husband  of  one  wife."  Tit.  i.  6. 
The  Church  of  Rome  forbids  it ;  and  dares  to 
put  asunder  what  God  hath  joined  together,  se- 
parating the  priest  or  bishop  from  his  lawful 
wife,  and  anathematizes  those  who  dissent  from 
her  decree.  Chrysostom  on  the  last  named 
Scripture,  makes  this  decisive  comment :    "  the 


9£5 


apostle  prescribed  this  passage  to  this  end,  that 
he  might  stop  the  mouths  of  heretics  who  re- 
proached marriage  ;  declaring  thereby  that  mar- 
riage is  no  unclean  thing,  but  so  honourable  that 
a  married  man  may  be  exalted  to  the  sacred 
throne  of  a  bishop."  (Horn.  2.  c.  1.  ad.  Tit.) 
It  is  very  remarkable  that  the  Apostle  Paul  in 
immediate  connnexion  with  his  definition  of  a 
Bishop's  qualifications  (among  which  he  men- 
tions that  he  must  be  the  husband  of  one  wife, 
1  Tim.  iii.  2.)  predicts  the  coming  of  seducing 
spirits  who  should  depart  from  the  faith,  "  forbid 
to  marry,  and  command  to  abstain  from  meats.'''' 
I  leave  the  application  for  yourself,  reminding 
you  that  the  early  heretics,  viz  :  the  Manichees, 
Nicholaitans,  &c.  unite  with  the  Church  of  Rome 
and  the  followers  of  Joanna  Southcote  and  Jemi- 
ma Wilkinson  in  more  modern  times,  in  "  forbid- 
ding to  marry."  Radolpho  Pio-di  Carpo,  an 
Italian  Cardinal  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  when 
various  princes  pressed  the  propriety  of  the 
priests  marrying,  told  the  Council  in  a  speech, 
"  this  inconvenience  would  follow  from  it,  that 
having  house,  wife,  and  children,  they  will  not 
depend  on  the  Pope,  but  on  the  prince  ;  and  their 
love  to  their  children  will  make  them  yield  to 
any  prejudice  of  the  church  and  they  will  seek 
to  make  the  benefices  hereditary,  and  so  in  a  short 
time  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  will  becon- 
fined  within  Rome."  (Hist.  Coun.  Trent.  B.  5.) 
It  was  the  abounding  corruptions  of  the  church 
of  Rome,  and  especially  of  Rome  itself,  that 
made  the  candid  Roman  Catholi*  author  of  the 
"  Onus  Ecclesiae"  call  Rome  "  the  seat  of  the 
Beast,  the  church  of  the  wicked,  the  kingdom 
of  darkness,  sustained  by  simony  and  ambition, 
filled  with  covetousness,  a  gulph  of  crimes." 
(Chap.  21.) 

You  have  been  pleased,  entirely  to  overlook 
the  long  extracts  which  I  made,  in  letter  No. 
18,  addressed  to  Pope  Paul  the  3d,  by  four.  Car- 
dinals, and  four  other  distinguished  Prelates  at 
his  own  request,  containing  a  picture  of  the 
church,  drawn  by  the  hands  of  its  friends,  which 
for  deformity  and  crime  finds  not  a  parallel  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  I  also  gave  you  large 
extracts,  in  Letter  No.  20,  from  the  address  of 
the  Bishops  at  Bononia  to  Paul  the  3d,  and  re- 
ferred you,  for  this  shocking  but  faithful  sketch, 
to  Verjerius  and  Wolfius.  I  pointed  you  also  to 
the  "  one  hundred  grievances'"  of  the  German 
States,  detailing  the  corruptions  of  the  church 
and  calling  for  reform.  But  nothing  can  break 
the  profound  and  wise  silence  which  you  have 
decreed  upon  this  subject.  Without  further  en- 
larging upon  it  now,  I  would  direct  our  readers 
to  the  "Provincial  Letters"  of  Pascal,  in  which, 
though  himself  a  Roman  Catholic,  he  exposes 
with  the  pen  of  a  master,  the  casuistry  of  the 
Jesuits  in  destroying  the  foundation  of  morak. 
There,  within  a  short  compass,  it  is  clearly 
shown,  how  the  order  of  the  Jesuits,  who  are  now 
in  high  favour  at  Rome,  make  truth,  and  sacred 
oaths,  and  loyalty,  and  justice,  and  chastity,  and 
principle,  in  all  its  forms,  give  way  to  their  re- 
fined   interpretations    and    infamous     doctrines. 


And  yet  I  find  that  on  the  last  Sabbath  day  the 
President  of  Georgetown  College,  District  of  Co- 
lumbia, delivered  in  St.  Joseph's  church  in  this 
city  a  Panegyric  (according  to  public  notice)  on 
St.  Ignatius  Loyola,  founder  of  the  society  of  Je- 
suits.'.'.' How  well  has  St.  Chrysostom  said, 
(In  1  Tim.  1.  hom.  5.)  "When  men  lead  corrupt 
lives  it  is  impossible  they  should  keep  them- 
selves from  falling  into  perverse  doctrines." 

II.  We  would  next  exhibit  the  forged,  miracles, 
the  legalized,  impositions  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

We  have  already,  in  a  previous  letter,  made 
reference  to  the  authority  of  the  Breviary  as  the 
book  of  common  prayer  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 
The  Latin  edition  of  this  work,  now  before  me, 
revised  by  three  Popes  and  of  unquestioned  au- 
thority, is  a  very  fountain  of  the  grossest  frauds 
and  superstition.  I  find  for  example,  under  the 
festival  appointed  for  the  15th  day  of  October 
(pages  1011,  1012)  in  honour  of  the  Virgin  Saint 
Teresa,  the  following  narrative.  "  She  burned 
with  so  strong  a  desire  for  chastising  her  body, 
that  although  disease  seemed  to  deter  from  it, 
she  inflicted  on  herself  the  severest  pains  and 
penalties  by  the  use  of  hair-cloth,  chains,  prick- 
ing-nettles, and  likewise  by  most  severe  flagella- 
tions ;  and  sometimes  while  rolling  herself  on 
thorns,  she  would  thus  hold  communion  with 
God;  '  O  Lord,  I  must  afflict  myself  or  die.''  Being 
premonished  of  her  death,  she  breathed  out  her 
most  pure  soul  to  God  in  the  form  of  a  dove, 
aged  sixty  seven,  in  the  year  1502.  Jesus 
Christ  appeared  to  her,  as  she  was  dying,  sur- 
rounded by  bands  of  angels;  and  immediately  a 
lifeless  and  barren  tree,  which  stood  near  to  her 
cell  bloomed  forth.  Her  body  continues  incor- 
rupt until  this  day,  (the  18th  century)  circumfus- 
ed  in  a  sacred  fluid,  and  is  worshipped  with  reli- 
gious veneration.  She  was  made  illustrious  by 
miracles  wrought  by  her,  both  before  and  after 
death.  Gregory  the  15th  has  canonized  her." 
Here  we  see  flagellation  and  other  self-inflicted 
punishments  recommended,  and  the  most  notori- 
ous frauds,  gravely  put  upon  the  people,  in  their 
standard  prayer  book,  for  real  miracles. 

It  is  related  of  Dionysius  in  the  same  booki 
"  that  after  he  had  been  beheaded  he  took  his 
head  in  his  arms,  and  carried  it  no  less  than  two 
thousand  paces."  (See  Breviary  1007  p.)  In  tho 
festival  of  August  the  1st,  in  honour  of  the  chains 
of  St.  Peter  (p.  877)  is  the  following  narrative. 
"  Eudoxia  the  wife  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius 
the  younger,  being  on  a  pilgrimage  at  Jerusalem 
received  among  other  presents,  the  chain  with 
which  the  Apostle  Peter  was  bound  by  Herod. 
Eudoxia  with  pious  veneration,  sent  this  chain  to 
her  daughter  who  was  then  at  Rome,  who  carried 
it  to  the  Pope,  the  Pope  in  return  showed  her 
another  chain  with  which  the  same  apostle  had 
been  bound  by  Nero.  As  soon  the  two  chains 
were  brought  together  it  came  to  pass,  that  they 
instantly  flew  to  each  other,  and  the  links  formed 
one  chain  as  if  welded  by  art."  In  honour  of  so 
great  a  miracle  the  church  instituted  the  festival 
"  ad  vinculum  In  the  proclamation  of  the  jubi- 
lee for  1825,  the  Pope  expressly  mentions  this 


236 


ain  as  an  inducement  to  the  faithful  to  visit 

3me  that  they  might  kiss  it,  and  secure  the  in- 

llgences  peculiar  to  such  miracles  and  relics, 

c.      In  pages   971 — 2  are    recorded    the   feats 

■id  miracles  of  St.  Januarius  livrng  and  dead. 

Ve  are  seriously    told  on  the  authority   of   the 

.1  fal  1  i b  1  e  church,  that  "by  means  of  his  dead 

ody  which  was  preserved  at  Naples,  an  eruption 

»f  Mount  Vesuvius  that  was  spreading  desolation 

ar    and  wide,  was    miraculously  extinguished. 

What  is  still  more  illustrious,  his  blood,  some 

of  which  is  preserved  in  a  glass  phial  at  Naples 

E'n  a  coagulated  state,  when  brought  within  reach 
if  the  Martyr's  head  is  immediately  liquefied, 
and  hails  up  as  if  recently  shed;  and  this  miracle 
may  be  seen  even  at  the  present  linle.,,  That 
there  may  be  no  question  about  this  record  I  give 
the  original.  Praeclarum  illud  quoque,  quod 
ejus  sanguis,  qui  in  ampulla  vitrea  concretus 
asservatur,  cum  in  conspectu  capitis  ejusdem  Mar- 
tyris  ponitur,  admirandum  in  modum  collique — 
fieri,  et  ebullire,  perinde  atque  recens  effusus. 
Ad  haec  usque  tempora  cernitur.  Great  as  is 
this  miracle,  the  chemist's  test  has  been  studious- 
ly resisted.  It  would  be  easy  to  settle  this  question 
by  such  a  trial,  and  real  miracles  invite  inquiry. 
But  the  Pope  is  too  wise  to  hazard  an  experi- 
ment, and  yet  it  is  a  miracle  professedly  of  fif- 
teen hundred  years  standing,  and  is  at  this  day 
sanctioned  by  the  Roman  Breviary  and  celebrated 
in  the  public  worship  of  the  whole  church. 
When  the  French  troops  first  occupied  Naples, 
this  miracle,  which  is  annual,  failed  to  occur; 
with  the  design  of  agitating  the  people  and  produc- 
ing an  injurious  impression  towards  the  French. 
But  the  French  general  sent  a  positive  order  to  the 
saint  to  do  his  duty  under  the  pain  of  making  an 
example  of  the  priest  if  he  failed.  He  promptly 
obeyed  :  the  miracle  was  immediately  wrought/ 
Once  more :  The  translation  of  the  house  of 
Loretto  from  Palestine  to  Italy,  is  recorded  in 
-'the  collect  of  that  festival,  even  in  a  direct  ad- 
*.  dress  to  the  Deity.  It  is  pretended,  that  this 
Jhouse,  in  which  the  Virgin  Mary  was  born 
■  at  Nazareth,  was  translated  by  angels  in  the 
Jl3th  century  across  the  Sea  into  Dalmatia,  and 
afterwards  into  Italy,  where  it  now  stands  under 
the  name  of  "  our  Lady  of  Loretto's  Chapel." 
When  the  question  arises  about  the  truth  of  the 
miracle  and  the  identity  of  the  house,  the  Bulls 
of  Popes  are  adduced  to  confirm  the  faith  of  the 
doubting.  With  such  frauds  are  the  bigoted  and 
deluded  millions  deceived,  and  by  such  attesta- 
tions does  the  infallible  Church  confirm  the  truth 
of  her  doctrines,  and  the  holiness  of  her  charac- 
ter. The  following  prophecy,  (2  Thess.  ii.  3 — 
10.)  though  penned  in  the  first  century,  is  as  true 
to  the  life,  as  if  it  had  been  written  by  an  eye- 
witness. "  Let  no  man  deceive  you  by  any 
means  :  for  that  day  shall  not  come,  except  there 
come  a  fulling  away  first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be 
revealed  the  son  of  perdition  ;  who  opposeth  and 
exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or 
that  is  worshipped ;  so  that  he,  as  God,  sitteth 
in  the  temple  of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is 
God.     Remember  ye  not,  that  when  I  was  yet 


with  you,  I  told  you  these  things'?  And  now  ye 
know  what  withholdeth  that  he  might  be  re- 
vealed in  his  time.  For  the  mystery  of  iniquity 
doth  already  work  ;  only  he  who  now  letteth, 
will  let,  until  he  be  taken  out  of  the  way,  and 
then  shall  that  wicked  be  revealed,  whom  the 
Lord  shall  consume  with  the  spirit  of  his  mouth, 
and  shall  destroy  with  the  brightness  of  his  com- 
ing :  Even  him,  whose  coming  is  after  the  work- 
ing  of  Satan,  with  all  power  and  signs,  and  lying 
wonders,  and  with  all  deceivableness  of  unrighte- 
ousness in  them  that  perish  ;  because  they  re- 
ceived not  the  love  of  the  truth  that  they  might 
be  saved." 

Besides  the  false  miracles  thus  attested  by  the 
Church  of  Rome,  the  rites,  ceremonies,  and  ob- 
servances of  the  Church  are  characterized  by  the 
grossest  superstitions,  and  exhibit  a  ritual-wor- 
ship derived  directly  from  the  Pagans.  The  cele- 
biation  of  the  Mass,  the  burning  of  tapers,  the 
whole  system  of  processions,  the  use  of  holy  wa- 
ter, their  exorcisms,  beads,  rosaries,  &c,  their 
talismans,  amulets,  and  Agnus  Dei,  their  lustra- 
tions, blessing  of  beasts,  &c.  &c,  constitute  one 
deforming  assemblage  of  heathenish  superstition. 
Look  for  example  at  the  style  of  Baptism  as  con- 
trasted with  the  simple  institution  of  Jesus 
Christ.  "The  Priest  in  the  first  place  calls  for 
a  lighted  candle  ;  he  then  procures  some  holy 
water,  he  next  calls  for  salt,  which  has  been  ex- 
orcised, some  water,  tow,  the  oil-box,  &c;  he 
then  prepares  a  solution  of  salt  and  water  for  the 
aspersion  of  the  child,  much  in  the  way  in  which 
holy  water  is  made,  describing  hieroglyphics 
with  his  hand,  and  pronouncing  at  the  same  time 
some  cabalistic  words  in  Latin.  Next  he  com- 
mences expelling  the  Devil  from  the  child,  he 
then  puts  salt  into  its  mouth,  besmears  the  eyes, 
nose,  and  ears  of  the  child  with  spittle,  and  after 
pouring  water  on  the  child's  head,  rubs  sweet  oil 
on  its  crown  and  shoulders." 

We  spoke  of  talismans,  amulets,  &c,  as  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Church  of  Rome.  Take  as  a  spe- 
cimen the  Agnus  Dei,  or  little  image  of  a  Lamb, 
made  of  a  compound  of  virgin-wax,  balm,  and 
consecrated  oil,  which  they  hang  about  the  neck, 
like  the  Heathen,  to  preserve  them  from  diseases, 
evil  spirits,  &c.  The  Pope  consecrates  the  Ag- 
nus Dei,  in  the  first  year  of  his  Pontificate,  and 
afterwards  every  seventh  year,  on  Saturday,  be- 
fore low  Sunday,  with  many  solemn  ceremonies. 
The  preiended  properties  and  virtues  of  these 
talismans  are  described  by  Pope  Urban  V.  (who 
sent  one  of  them  to  Constantinople  to  be  presented 
to  the  Emperor,)  in  the  following  inimitable 
lines : 

Balsamus  et  munda  cera  cum  Chrismatis  unda, 
Conficiunt  Agnum  quod  munus  do  tibi  magnum. 
Fulgura  desursum  depellit,  onine  malignum. 
Peccatum  frangit,  ut  Christi  sanguis,  et  angit. 
Pregnaus  servalur,  simul  et  partus  liberalur. 
Dona  defert  dignis,  virtutem  deslruit  ignis. 
Porlatus  munde,  de  fluctibus  eripit  undae." 

I  refer  these  infallible  and  lofty  lines  for  poe- 
tieal  rendering  to  the  pen  of  your  holy  poet,  ci- 
devant,  Tom.  Moore.     Our  readers  for  the  present 


227 


must  be  satisfied  with  the  following  plain  English 
translation.  "  They  prevent  the  ill  effects  of 
thunder  and  lightning,  they  preserve  pregnant 
women  from  miscarriages,  and  procure  a  happy 
delivery.  They  grant  spiritual  gifts  to  the  worthy. 
They  extinguish  fires  and  preserve  from  drown- 
ing." 

In  the  last  pages  of  the  Missal,  whose  leaves 
you  doubtless  turn  over  every  day  as  a  Priest  at 
the  altar,  there  are  contained  exorcisms  and  bene- 
dictions for  salt,  and  water,  and  for  the  mingling 
of  these,  for  sheep,  for  bread,  for  fruit  and  other 
food,  for  candles,  places,  houses,  beds,  ships,  sa- 
cerdotal robes,  &c.  &c.  We  give  as  an  example 
the  exorcism  of  water.  "  I  exorcise  thee  O  creature 
of  water,  in  the  name  of  God  f  the  Omnipotent 
Father,  and  in  the  name  of  Jesus  f  Christ  his  Son, 
our  Lord,  and  by  the  virtue  of  the  Holy  j-  Ghost; 
that  thou  mayest  become  exorcised  water,  and  may 
prevail  in  chasing  away  the  powerof  the  Evil  one, 
and  be  able  to  supplant  and  expel  him  and  his 
fallen  angels, .by  the  merit  of  the  same  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord."  The  prayer  of  consecration.  "O 
Lord  be  present  to  bless  our  invocation  and  infuse 
into  this  element,  thus  prepared  by  many  fold  pu- 
rifications, the  virtue  of  thy  Benefdiction :  that 
this  thy  creature  made  subservient  to  thy  myste- 
ries, may  have  the  effect  of  divine  grace  in  expel- 
ling devils  and  diseases  :  that  in  whatever  houses 
or' places  of  the  faithful  this  water  may  be  sprink- 
led, all  noxious  uncleanness  may  cease:  let  no 
pestilent  spirit  or  corrupt  air  abide  in  them:  let 
all  the  snares  of  the  evil  one  come  to  naught:  and 
if  there  be  any  tiling  which  threatens  the  safety 
or  quiet  of  the  inhabitants,  may  it  be  chased  away 
by  the  sprinkling  of  this  water,  &c." 

From  these  most  painful  and  humiliating  details 
I  gladly  turn  away,  asking,  if  any  church  enjoin- 
ing such  heathenish  rites  and  superstitious  cere- 
monies as  these,  and  sustaining  them  by  such  bare- 
faced impostures  called  miracles,  can  be  the  true, 
the  only  true,  the  holy  and  infallible  church  of 
Jesus  Christ,  out  of  which  there  is  no  salvation] 
These  are  some  of  the  errors  and  evils,  against 
which  we  protest,  and  for  whose  reform  our  fathers 
plead  in  vain ! 

III.  As  you  profess  to  have  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  the  unbroken  and  exclusive  succession 
from  the  Apostle  Peter  to  the  present  time,  I  will 
next  examine  this  claim. 

I  hav»,  already,  proved  (see  letter  No.  22,) 
that  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  is  an  anti- chris- 
tian usurpation  of  which  the  Scriptures  are  whol- 
ly silent;  and  whose  origin  is  found,  ages  after 
the  death  of  Christ.  But  even  on  your  own  prin- 
ciples, Bellarmine  allows  (B.  2.  c.  1.  of  the 
Pope,)  "  The  right  of  succession  in  the  Popes  of 
Rome  is  founded  in  this,  that  Peter,  by  Christ's 
appointment  placed  his  seat  at  Rome,  and  there 
remained  until  his  death." 

1.  But  there  is  no  certainty  whatever  that  Pe- 
ter ever  was  at  Rome.  The  Scripture  is  wholly 
silent  about  it.  Paul  was  there  once  and  again  ; 
and  in  his  epistles  written  from  Rome  he  records 
a  long  list  of  names,  and  among  them  even  a 
refugee-slave;    but  not  a   word  of  Pope  Peter. 


The  Rhemish  Commentators  are  so  anxious  to 
prove  this  from  Scripture,  that  they  say  Babylon 
from  which  Peter  wrote  his  first  epistle,  was 
Rome.  But  if  this  be  so,  then  confessedly,  Rome 
is  the  Anti-Christ  mentioned  in  Revelations,  16th 
and  17th  chapters. 

2.  Allowing  that  Peter  was  at  Rome,  there  is 
not  a  shadow  of  proof  that  he  had  his  seat  there, 
or  that  Christ  appointed  him  to  be  Bishop  of 
Rome.  The  Bible  is  wholly  silent  on  this  sub- 
ject also.  Yet  surely  in  fixing  the  imperial  seat, 
and  appointing  the  monarch  and  head  of  the  uni- 
versal church,  we  might  expect  it  to  be  full  and 
definite,  saying,  "  this  is  the  place,"  "  this  is  the 
man,"  "hear  ye  him."  So  far  from  this,  Peter 
had  quite  another  sphere.  His  field  of  labour 
was  far,  far  away  from  Rome;  and  his  office  as 
an  Apostle,  made  it  impossible  for  him  to  be  a 
Bishop,  or  to  be  local,  or  to  have  a  successor 
at  all. 

3.  The  Apostle  John  survived  Peter  some  30 
years.  Hence  the  succsssion,  if  any,  must  come 
from  John,  or  else  the  Pope  who  succeeded  Peter 
was  the  head  of  the  church,  and  above  an  Apos- 
tle. But  you  do  not  pretend  to  trace  succession 
from  John;  and  your  own  doctrines  lead  you  to 
deny  that  the  successor  of  Peter  was  superior  to 
John.  Therefore  your  succession  is  irreparably 
ruined  at  the  threshhold.  If  not,  will  you  please 
to  explain  this  dilemma'? 

4.  It  is  not  agreed  among  yourselves  whether 
Linus,  or  Clemens,  or  Cletus,  or  Anacletus  suc- 
ceeded as  second  Pope.  The  Fathers  are  divided 
about  it;  so  are  your  standard  authors.  Bellar- 
mine owns  this  to  be  the  fact.  Here  then,  the  suc- 
cession fails  again,  at  the  IhirdWnk. 

5.  What  were  the  character  and  doctrine,  of 
these  pretended  successors  of  Peter.  There 
were  fifty  Popes  in  a  line,  says  Genebrard,  who 
were  .Apostates.  Baronius  tells  us  that  strumpets' 
elected  several  Popes,  whom  they  also  ruled,  • 
having  driven  away  the  true  Popes,  and  that  their'' 
names  were  written  in  the  catalogues  of  the  Popes 
only  to  note  the  times.  These  testimonies  have 
been  brought  forward  before  ;  but  you  lack  "  in- 
tention,'''' and  therefore  they  are  of  no  avail.  Bel- 
larmine says,  (Book  4.  c.  14.  on  Popes,)  "that 
at  the  Council  of  Constance  there  were  three 
who  claimed  to  be  Popes,  John  XXIII.,  Greg- 
ory XII.,  and  Benedict  XIII.;  each  having  very 
learned  advocates;  and  it  could  not  be  readily 
decided  which  was  the  4.rue  Pope."  Again,  (in 
his  B.  2.  c.  19.  of  Councils)  he  says,  "  a  doubt- 
ful Pope  is  reckoned  no  Pope."  Since  then  there 
were  false  Popes,  and  apostate  Popes,  and  several 
Popes  at  once,  who  being  doubtful,  were  no  Popes, 
is  not  the  succession  of  your  Church  forever  gone? 
And  then  as  to  the  doctrines  of  these  Popes,  what 
were  they?  Ambrose  saith,  "  they  have  not  the 
succession  of  Peter,  who  have  not  his  faith.''' 
(Ambrose  de  Poenit.  B.  I.  c.  6.)  Gratian  has 
practiced  a  fraud  upon  this  passage,  making  it 
read  "  seat"  of  Peter,  instead  of  "  faith"  of  Pe- 
ter. This  is  owning  that  "  in  faith"  the  succes- 
sion was  gone.  I  have  heretofore  mentioned 
several  heretical  Popes.     Their  contradictions  of 


228 


each  other,  and  their  departure  from  the  faith  of 
the  Church,  are  matters  of  such  notoriety  that 
you  will  not  deny  them.  If  you  do,  I  can  name 
them  at  will.  I  will  here  only  advert  to  Liberius, 
the  Arian  Pope.  And  1  ask  you  did  he  or  did 
he  not  sign  the  Arian  Creed  ?  Yes,  or  no?  He 
■did,  as  your  own  historians  confess,  publicly 
adopt  the  Arian  Heresy.  Then  while  he  was  an 
Arian,  what  became  of  the  Apostolical  succes- 
sion1? when  the  Head  of  the  universal  Church 
as  you  declare  him  to  have  been,  became  radi- 
cally, and  avowedly  a  Heretic,  either  his  heresy 
made  his  office  vacant,  or  else  he  continued  the 
Head  Of  the  Church.  If  the  former,  then  the 
succession  was  broken  for  want  of  a  Pope.  If 
•the  latter,  then  your  succession  is  kept  up  through 
the  Arian  line,  and  by  the  destruction  of  the  true 
faith. 

6.  The  succession  in  your  church  is  ruined  by 
the  schisms  and  electoral  variations  of  the  Papa- 
cy.     Geddes   enumerated   twenty-four    schisms. 
Mayer  and   Barenius  twenty-six ;   and  Onufrius 
thirty,  which  is  the  common  estimate.     The  se- 
cond schism  in  the  Papacy  lasted  for  three  years, 
It  arose  between    Liberius   and   Felix,   both   of 
whom  were  Arians ;  yet  now  both,  are  on  the  ca- 
lender of  Roman   saints!      The  seventh   schism 
distinguised  the  Popedoms  of  Silverius  and  Vigi- 
lius.      Silverius  obtained  the    Pontificate  by  si- 
mony, and  was  supplanted  by  Vigilius,  by  similar 
means.     They  were  rival  Popes,  occupying  pro- 
fessedly the  Papal  chair  at  the  same  time.     Ac- 
cording to  canon  law,  as  well  as  common  sense, 
-this  was  impossible ;  and  yet  the  schism,  nulli- 
fied the  succession.     Formosus  and  Sergius  dis- 
graced  the  Papacy,  divided  the  church  and  des- 
troyed the  succession,  by   the  thirteenth  schism. 
About  this   time   a   number   of  the  Popes  were 
monsters  upon  earth.     Stephen,  who  succeed  For- 
mosus, violated  his  grave,  and  insulted  his  dead 
hody,  as  we  have  already  related.  John  the  tenth  re- 
scinded in  turn  the  acts  of  Stephen  ;  and  Sergius 
ao-ain  the  acts  of  John,  restoring  the  ordinations 
of  Stephen  and  annulling  the  ordinations  of  For- 
mosus.     Amidst   these  conflicts,   schisms,   and 
mutual  abrogations  of  each  other's  Pontifical  ordi- 
nations and  acts,  where  was  the  succession,  either 
of  the  Popes,  or  of  the  clergy?     In  the  11th  cen- 
tury Pope  Sylvester,  Pope  John,  and  Pope  Bene- 
dict, all  reigned  at  the   same  time,  exhibiting  a 
specimen  of°a  Papal  Cerberus.     The  great  west- 
ern schism,  being  the  twenty-ninth  division,  lasted 
for  fifty  years,  and  extended  through  the  reigns  of 
Urbahj   Boniface,  Innocent,    Gregory,    Clement, 
and  Benedict.     Rival  Popes  reigned  at  Avignon, 
und   Rome,   and   distracted    the  church  and   the 
world  with  schism  and  revolution,  with  atrocious 
•crimes  and  unbounded  wretchedness.  Amidst  these 
thirty  schisms,  where  is  the  Apostolical  succession  ? 
Amidst  ordinations  and  -counter-ordinations,  and 
ordinations  recalled,  where  was  the  succession  of 
the  clergy  ?     Papal  succession  thus  lies  buried  in 
a  heap  of  ruins,   and   is  attended  with  more  diffi- 
culty than   "  the  quadrature  of  the  circle  or  the 
longitude  at  sea."     And  yet  you  boast  of  your 
unbroken  succession  from  the  Apostle  Peter,  and 


array  with  empty  pageantry,  from  letter  to  letter 
your  objections  against  the  rights  of  Protestant 
ministers  to  preach  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ. 

7.  In  the  age  of  Liberius  and  Felix,  the  rival 
Arian  Popes,  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  the 
church  at  large,  also  became  Arian.  The  Tyrian 
Synod  convened  by  the  Emperor,  A.  D.  335, 
adopted  the  Arian  creed,  and  excommunicated 
Athanasius,  the  champion  of  truth.  The  Synod 
of  Antioch  also  degraded  this  great  man.  The 
Synod  of  Aries  in  353  sustained  the  heresy  of 
Arius,  and  condemned  Athanasius.  In  355  the 
Synod  of  Milan,  a  Western  Council,  and  composed 
of  several  hundred  members,  formally  denounced 
the  true  faith.  Thus  western  and  eastern  Chris- 
tendom united  to  espouse  Arianism.  The  Sir- 
mian  Council  issued  three  creeds.  The  second 
of  these,  A.  D.  357,  was  without  mixture  Arian, 
and  this  was  confirmed  by  Pope  Liberius.  Du 
Pin  gives  this  testimony,  and  is  sustained  by 
Hilary,  who  calls  this  formulary  "  the  Arian  per- 
fidy;" and  by  Athanasius,  Jerome,  Sozomen, 
&c.  &c. 

Here  then  the  Papal  Church  in  its  head  and  in 
•its  representatives  a^Sirmium  apostatized  from  the 
true  faith,  and   adopted   at  large   a  fatal  heresy. 
The  Council  of  Ariminum  met  in  359,  ajad  was 
composed  of  from  four  to  six  hundred   Bishops. 
It  seemed  to  begin  well,  but  ended  in  subscribing 
the  semi-Arian  Creed  and  making  the  Son  of  God 
a  creature.     About  this  time  Arianism  filled   the 
world.     Sozomen,  Jerome,  Gregory,  Basil,  Pros- 
per, Baronius,  and  Bede  acknowledge  this.    Arian- 
ism was  thus  sanctioned  by  Popes,  Councils,  and 
the  Church  at  large.     From  these  undeniable  facts 
we  draw  the  following  conclusions.    (1.)  The  true 
succession  of  the   Church  of  Rome  is -irrecover- 
ably lost  amidst  the  apostacy  and  heresy  of  her 
Popes   and   Bishops,   unless  you  trace  it  in  the 
Arian  line.     (2.)  As  the  head  and   great  body  of 
the  Church,  both  generally,  and  in  Councils  were 
radically  heretical,  separation  was   not  only  the 
right  but  duty  of  the  faithful.     Arianism  was  sub- 
scribed by  the  Pope,  and  sustained  by  the  Coun- 
cils;  the  Emperor  directed  all  his  power  to  per- 
secute the   orthodox,  and  establish  heresy  :  the 
pulpits  and  the  churches  were  filled  with  Arians ; 
and  Athanasius  himself  was  condemned  and  ex- 
communicated. In  these  circumstances  God's  peo- 
ple must  either  subscribe  to  heresy,  and  be  subject 
to  daily  contamination  themselves,   or  else  sepa- 
rate themselves.     They   chose   to  separate   them- 
selves.    In  the  manner  of  this    separation    they 
had  no  more  choice,  than  they  had  in  the  duty  of 
it.     Their   number   was   as  one   to  a   thousand. 
Every  decree  and  question   was  carried  against 
them.     Thus  outnumbered,  and  the  Pope  against 
them,  their  only  choice  was  to  retire  ;  nay,  they 
were  denounced  and  excommunicated  ;  they  fled 
to  the  forests ;  they  held  their  religious  assem- 
blies in  the  fields;  they  withdrew  from  the  con- 
tagion of  the  corrupted  church.     And  for  this  the 
orthodox  fathers  commmend  them.     But  on  your 
principles  they  were  bound  to  stay:  they  had  no 
right  to  go.     The  Arians  had  authority  from  God 
to  force  their  faith  upon  them,  and  to  "  unfrock" 


339 


even  Athanasius  for  refusing  to  subscribe  their 
abominable  creed.  But  if  the  church  at  large  may 
become  so  corrupt  in  faith  or  morals,  or  both,  as 
to  leave  the  faithful  no  choice  but  heresy  or  sepa- 
ration, then  separation  is  a  duty ;  and  then,  also, 
wicked  excommunications  can  have  no  binding 
authority  :  for  that  ivhich  makes  it  a  sin  to  con- 
form, also  nullifies  the  excommunicating  act.  It 
is  the  church  which  goes  out ;  and  she  carries 
with  her  the  institutions  and  blessings  of  her  di- 
vine head.  You  evade  this  reasoning,  by  deny- 
ing that  the  church  can  err.  But  facts  confute 
you.  You  say  that  God  has  promised  that  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  her.  True  : 
and  the  very  way  to  fulfil  it  is  to  separate  the 
good  from  the  evil  ;  as  Athanasius  did  from  the 
Aiians,  and  the  Reformers  from  the  Pope  of 
Rome.  That  promise  is  that  a  church  shall  al- 
ways exist,  but  not  an  infallible  one  ;  and  it  was 
made  to  the  Catholic  not  the  Roman  church  !  The 
true  Catholic  church  cannot  fail.  But  the  Roman, 
which  never  was  the  Catholic  church  (and  was 
not  called  so  forages  after  the  death  of  Christ.) 
was  threatened  with  excision  by  the  Apostle  Paul. 
Rom.  xi.  20—22.  |"  Thou  standest  by  faith— other- 
wise thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off"." 

We  have  now  reached  the  second  era  in  this  dis- 
cussion, viz:  your  attempt  at  a  defence  of  some  of 
your  peculiar  doctrines.  The  very  fact  that  you  feel 
it  necessary  to  do  so,  after  what  you  have  hereto- 
fore said,  is  a  fine  index  to  the  present  state  of 
the  discussion.  From  a  crowd  of  pressing  diffi- 
culties on  Supremacy,  Indulgences,  Purgatory, 
Idolatory,  Extreme  Unction,  etc.  etc.  you  se- 
lect for  defence  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantia- 
tion.  In  your  argument  we  meet  the  newly 
christened  "defender  of  the  faith,"  Thomas 
Moore,  at  almost  every  step.  In  his  "  Travels 
in  search  of  a  Religion,"  he  found  it  convenient 
to  pass  by  the  word  of  God,  agreeing  no  doubt 
with  you,  (in  your  discussion  on  the  "rule  of 
faith")  that  when  left  to  speak  for  itself,  it  does 
not  teach  the  religion  of  Rome.  If,  in  his  travels 
he  had  visited  Rome,  or  touched  at  the  Inquisition, 
or  met  the  Council  of  Sirmium,  or  mingled  with 
the  Council  of  Constance,  he  might  have  given 
a  very  different  report.  At  the  latter  place,  he 
might  have  relieved  the  severity  of  theological 
discussion  by  the  more  agreeable  communion  of 
those  fifteen  hundred  fair  companions  who  at- 
tended the  holy  fathers  ,■  and  have  found  a  mar- 
ket for  his  "  amatory  poetry,"  as  well  as  ma- 
terials for  the  defence  of  the  infallible  church. 
I  do  not  blame  you,  however,  for  availing  yourself 
of  every  help  in  time  of  need.  His  book,  has  no- 
thing new,  save  the  service  to  which  it  led  him. 
But  to  proceed.  It  is  not  a  little  surprising  that 
in  a  defence  of  Transubstantiation  covering  five 
columns,  you  should  not  only  begin  with  the  fa- 
thers (instead  of  the  Bible)  but  should  also  en- 
tirely evade  the  testimony  of  your  writers  and 
the  body  of  my  arguments  given  in  Letter  24. 
You  will  permit  me  to  invert  the  order  of  discus- 
sion, by  beginning  with  the  Scriptures.  And 
first,  in  regard  to  John,  6th  chapter,  where  it  is 


thus  written.  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood  ye  have  no  life 
in  you."  verse  53.  On  this  passage  you  attempt 
to  found  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation.  But 
observe  (1.)  if  this  be  taken  literally"\\  will  prove 
that  Christ's  body  was  changed  into  bread,  and 
not  the  bread  into  his  body  ;  for  he  expressly 
says  "  this  is  the  bread  which  cometh  down  from 
heaven."  verse  50.  But  your  doctrine  is  the  re- 
verse of  this,  viz.  that  the  bread  is  chano-ed  into1 
his  body.  Of  course  this  passage  gives  no  sup- 
port to  your  doctrine.  Besides,  this  discourse 
was  delivered  more  than  a  year  before  the  insti- 
tution of  the  last  supper,  and  (as  Cusanus,  Biel, 
Cajetan,  Tapper,  Hessels,  Jansenius,  all  Roman 
Catholic  writers,  allow)  had  no  reference  to  that 
sacrament.  (2.)  In  verses  32,  33,  Christ  ex- 
pressly tells  us,  that  the  bread  he  is  here  speak- 
ing of  came  down  from  heaven,-  but  his  natural 
body  was  born  on  earth  and  had  never  been  in 
heaven  ;  and  the  bread  which  you  say  is  chano-ed 
into  his  body,  "  is  of  the  earth  earthly."  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  Christ  did  not  here  refer  at 
all  to  the  sacrament.  (3.)  Such  was  the  virtue  of 
the  bread  here  spoken  of,  that  whoever  ate  of  it  had 
eternal  life,  "  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall 
live  forever."  v.  51.  If  then,  Christ  here  speaks  of 
the  last  supper,  it  follows,  that  all  who  partake 
of  it,  are  forever  saved.  But  this  your  own 
dogmas  contradict.  Therefore,  on  your  own 
principles  Christ  spoke  not  of  the  Eucharist. 
(1.)  Whosever  eats  not  this  bread  is  lost  for  ever. 
"  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  ye 
have  no  life  in  you."  ver.  53.  Then,  if  this  pas- 
sage refers  to  the  Lord's  supper  all  are  damned 
who  do  not  partake  of  it.  Will  you  follow  your 
false  logic  to  such  an  issue?  And  again,  Christ 
said,  ver.  53.  "Except  ye  drink  the  blood  of 
the  Son  of  man,  ye  have  no  life  in  you."  But  the 
cup  is  forbidden  to  the  laity  by  your  church  under 
a  heavy  anathema.  Then  if  Christ  is  here  speak- 
ing of  the  Eucharist,  all  the  laity  in  the  church 
of  Rome  are  lost  forever,  and  that  by  the  ex- 
press law  of  said  church.  Therefore,  if  your 
argument  be  true,  you  must  restore  the  cup  to 
the  people,  or  destroy  all  their  souls.  (5.)  Christ 
expressly  tells  us  that  this  is  throughout,  a  fig- 
ure and  has  not  a  literal  but  a  spiritual  meaning; 
that  it  is  not  an  external  eating  and  drinking 
with  the  mouth,  but  an  internal  and  spiritual  par- 
ticipation effected  in  the  soul  of  the  believer, 
through  a  living  faith,  and  by  the  quickening 
spirit  of  Christ.  The  Jews,  understood  Christ 
literally  and  grossly,  just  as  Roman  Catholics 
do  now  ;  but  he  openly  rebuked  them  for  their 
carnal  stupidity,  in  mistaking  his  meaning. 
"  This  is  that  bread  which  came  down  from  hea- 
ven ;  not  as  your  fathers  did  eat  manna. It 

is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth 
nothing ;  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they 
are  spirit  and  they  are  life.  But  there  are  some 
of  you  that  believe  not,"  vs.  58,  63.  64.  Such 
is  the  obvious  destruction  of  your  doctrine  as 
founded  upon  this  passage.  But  that  you  may 
see  that  this  interpretation  is  agreeable  to  anti- 


330 


quity,  I  will  adduce  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers. 
Eusebius,  (Lib.  3.  Ecclesiast.  Theologiae,  Cont. 
Marcell.)  Speaking  of  the  above  words  of  Christ, 
in  paraphrase,  he  says,  "Do  not  think  that  I  speak 
of  that  flesh  wherewith  I  urn  cnmpasscd  as  if  you 
must  eat  of  that;  neither  imagine  that  I  command 
you,  to  drink  of  my  sensible  and  bodily  blood: 
but  understand  that  the  words  which  I  have 
spoken  unto  you  are  spirit  and  life.  So  that  those 
very  words  and  speeches  of  his,  are  his  flesh  and 
blood."  Augustine,  (In  serm.  ad.  infan.  de  Sac. 
apud  Bedam.)  "  It  is  no  way  to  be  doubted  by 
any  one  that  the  faithful  are  made  partakers  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  when  they  are 
made  members  of  Christ  in  Baptism ;  and  they 
are  not  estranged  from  the  communion  of  that 
bread  and  that  cup,  although  before  they  eat  that 
bread  and  drink  that  cup,  they  depart  out  of  this 
world,  being  united  to  the  body  of  Christ;  for 
they  are  not  deprived  of  the  participation  and 
benefit  of  the  Sacrament  when  they  have  found  that 
which  the  Sacrament  doth  signify.  And  ao-ain, 
(in  Evang.  John,  Tracts  25,  26,  50.)  ""how 
shall  I  send  up  my  hand  into  heaven  and  take 
hold  on  Christ  sitting  there  !  Send  thy  faith  and 
thou  hast  hold  of  him.  Why  preparest  thou  thy 
teeth  and  thy  belly  ?  Believe,  and  thou  hast  eaten. 
For  this  is  to  eat  the  living  bread;  to  believe  in 
him.  He  that  believeth  in  him  eateth.  He  is  in- 
visibly fed,  because  he  is  invisibly  regenerated. 
He  is  inwardly  a  babe,  inwardly  renewed :  where 
he  is  renewed,  there  he  is  nourished '." 

How  plain  is  it  then,  that  the  Fathers  dissented 
from  the  carnal  and  senseless  construction  of  your 
church;  and  how  affecting  is  the  evidence,  that  the 
spirituality  of  religion  and  the  quickening  grace 
of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  are  as  little  understood  by 
the  Roman  priesthood,  as  they  were  of  old  by 
Nicodemus  and  the  unbelieving  Jews. 

I  regret  that  the  limits  of  the  present  letter  for- 
bid me  to  enter  farther  on  the  confutation  and  expo- 
sure of  your  use  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  Fathers 
-in  your  defence  of  Transubstantiation.  While 
I  refer  our  readers  to  what  you  have  left  unan- 
swered on  this  subject  in  my  Letter  No.  XXI V. 
I  pledge  myself  to  do  this  at  large,  if  my  life  is 
spared,  in  my  next  letter. 

When  I  quoted  for  your  perusal,  the  chal- 
lenge of  Bishop  Jewel,  it  was  rather  to  invite 
your  attention  to  his  reasoning,  than  his  charac- 
ter ;  and  you  must  be  aware  that  you  do  net 
answer  the  one,  by  attacking  the  other.  It  is 
true,  even  as  you  have  said,  that  he  once  con- 
fessed "  he  had  written  what  Jie  had  done 
against  his  own  knowledge  and  conscience, 
only  to  comply  with  the  state,  and  the  religion 
which  it  had  set  up."  When  Mary  of  bloody 
memory,  ascended  the  throne  of  England,  and  re- 
established by  her  memorable  persecutions  and 
cruelties,  the  religion  of  Rome,  Jewel  was  hunt- 
ed down  and  compelled  either  to  renounce  his 
religion  or  go  the  stake.  "  His  cowardly  mind" 
as  he  himself  confessed,  yielded  in  the  hour  of  dan- 
ger and  temptation  to  a  forced  conformity.  It  is  to 
this  he  refers  in  the  language  which  you  adduce. 
A.nd  yet  with  unaccountable  license,  you  make  it 


appear,  at  the  close  of  your  letter,  that  he  renounc- 
ed the  Protestant  religion  ! !  Over  such  deliber- 
ate misrepresentations,  I  would  for  your  office 
sake,  if  truth  and  justice  did  not  forbid,  throw  a 
veil  which  should  hide  it  from  the  eyes  of  men. 
You  have  used  the  same  liberty  (as  I  have  here- 
tofore shown)  with  the  writings  of  Luther ;  and 
your  silence  on  this  subject  in  the  last  letter 
seems  to  confess  that  it  could  not  be  defended. 
The  frequency  of  such  occurrences  in  your  letters, 
afflicts  and  amazes  me. 

But  to  return  to  Bishop  Jewel,  allow  me  once 
more  to  propose  for  your  consideration  and  an- 
swer, the  direct  questions  which  his  famous 
challenge  contains.  Are  they  incapable  of  an- 
swer? Are  they  not  simple,  pertinent,  and  de- 
cisive ]  I  pray  you,  that  you  will  not  again  pass 
them  by.     I  remain,  yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinridge. 

P.  S.  As  the  time  originally  specified  "  in  the 
rules"  for  the  continuance  of  this  controversy  has 
now  elapsed,  it  is  due  to  the  public  and  the  parties, 
that  the  following  correspondence  should  be  made 
known.  I  accordingly  publish  it  below.  It  suf- 
ficiently explains  itself  without  the  need  of  com- 
ment. 


Princeton,  N.  /.,  26th  July,  1833. 
Rev.  John  Breckinridge, 

Rev.  Sir, — Allow  me  in  this  way  to  remind  you 
that  the  period  for  which  the  Controversy  was  to 
continue  has  now  just  elapsed.  The  letter  now 
in  press  ends  the  six  months,  beyond  which,  ac- 
cording to  mutual  agreement,  the  correspondence 
was  not  to  go. 

If,  however,  it  should  be  deemed  proper  by  the 
disputants  to  prosecute  the  discussion  still  further 
in  the  columns  of  the  Presbyterian,  it  will  be  ne- 
cessary that  there  should  be  previously  a  personal 
arrangement  and  definitive  limitation  of  time,  be- 
tween yourself  and  Mr.  Hughes. 

A  reply,  addressed  to  the  care  of  the  publishers, 
will  be  esteemed  by  me  as  a  favour. 

An  exact  duplicate  of  this  letter  is  carried  by 
the  same  mail  to  the  Rev.  Mr.   Hughes,  in  pur- 
suance of  that  impartiality  which  it  has  been  my 
endeavour  to  maintain. 
Respectfully  yours, 

James  W.  Alexander, 

Ed.  of  the  Presbyterian. 


To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — On  my  return  from  Baltimore  this  morn- 
ing, I  received  a  letter  from  the  Editor  of  the 
Presbyterian,  reminding  me  that  "  the  period  for 
which  the  Controversy  was  to  continue  has  now 
elapsed,"  and  saying,  that  "if  the  disputants 
should  deem  it  proper  to  prosecute  the  discussion 
still  further  in  the  columns  of  the  Presbyterian, 
it  will  be  necessary  that  there  should  be  previ- 
ously, a  personal  arrangement,  and  definitive 
limitations  of  time,  between  yourself  and  Mr. 
Hughes." 

In  view  of  the  above  suggestions,  it  becomes 


331 


my  duty  to  say  to  you,  that  it  rests  entirely  with 
yourself  to  close  or  continue  the  discussion. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  for  me  to  commence 
my  autumnal  tour,  earlier  than  the  1st  of  October; 
in  the  mean  time  therefore,  I  am  entirely  at  your 
service.  And  if  after  that  time,  you  feel  disposed 
to  prosecute  the  Controversy  still  further,  I  shall 
be  happy  to  meet  you  in  a  public  oral  discus- 
sion ;  or  if  you  think  prudent  to  decline  that,  I 
shall  at  all  times  hold  myself  in  readiness  to  at- 
tend to  your  communications  (through  the  press) 
of  a  more  permanent  and  connected  character. 
I  remain  your  ob't.  serv't. 

John  Breckinridge. 
Philadelphia,  August  1,  1833. 


To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev,  Sir, — I  have  already  complied  with  the 
requisition  of  Mr.  Alexander,  by  a  note  to  the 
publishers — in  which  I  have  stated  my  intention 
to  continue  the  controversy  as  long  as  may  be 
desired.  You  will  have  it  in  your  power  to  fix 
the  "  limitation"  when  and  where  you  may  deem 
it  convenient. 

Your  obedient  servant, 


John  Hushe.9. 


August  1st,  1833. 


CONTROVERSY N°.  29. 


Is  the  Protestant  Religiogi  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


RULES. 

The  undersigned,  agreeing  to  have  an  amicable  discus- 
sion of  the  great  points  of  religious  controversy  between 
Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics,  do  hereby  bind  them- 
selves to  the  observance  of  the  following  rules  : 

1.  The  parties  shall  write  and  publish,  alternately,  in 
the  weekly  religious  papers  called  the  Presbyterian,  and 
a  Roman  Catholic  paper,  to  be  furnished  by  the  first  of 
January,  it  being  understood  that  the  communications 
shall  be  published  after  the  following  plan  : — One  parly 
opening  the  first  week,  the  other  party  replying  the  next 
week,  and  every  piece  to  be  republished  in  the  immedi- 
ately succeeding  number  of  the  Roman  Catholic  paper. 
The  communications  not  to  exceed  four  colums  of  the 
Presbyterian,  nor  lo  continue  beyond  six  months,  without 
consent  of  parties. 

2.  The  parties  agree  that  there  is  an  infallible  Rule  of 
Faith  established  by  Christ,  to  guide  us  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion, for  the  purpose  of  determining  disputes  in  the  Church 
of  Christ. 

3.  They  moreover  agree,  that  after  giving  their  views 
of  the  Rule  of  Faith,  they  shall  proceed  to  discuss  the 
question  "Is  the  Protestant  Religion,  the  Religion  of 
Christ  ?" 

4.  The  parties  agree  respectivel}',  io  adhere  strictly 
to  the  subject  of  discussion,  i'or  the  lime  being,  and  to  ad- 
mit no  second  question,  until  the  first  shall  have  been  ex 
hausted.  Each  party  shall  be  the  judge  when  he  is  done 
with  a  subject,  and  shall  be  at  liberty  to  occupy  his  lime 
with  a  second  topic,  when  he  is  done  with  the  first,  leav- 
ing to  the  other  party  the  liberty  of  continuing  to  review 
the  abandoned  topic,  as  long  as  he  shall  choose  ;  subject, 
however,  to  be  answered,  if  he  introduce  new  matter. 

5.  Mr.  Hughes  to  open  the  discussion,  and  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge to  follow,  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
judgment. 

John  Breckinridge, 
J. no.  Hughes. 
Philadelphia,  December  Uth,  1832. 

IS  THE   PROTESTANT   RELIGION   THE  RELI- 
GION OF  CHRIST? 

To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge, 

Rev.  Sir, — "Mr.  Breckinridge,  says  that  "the  Protes- 
tant is  the  religion  of  Christ." 

If  so,  J  call  vpon  him  1st.  To  tell  me  what  the  Protes- 
tant religion  is  ? 

2.  /  call  upon  him  to  say  lohat  society  of  Chris- 
tians ever  taught  this  pretended  "  religion  of 
Christ"  previous  to  the  Reformation  1 

3.  I  call  vpon  him  to  say,  whether  Christ  revealed 
ALL  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  religion,  be- 
ginning with  the  best  image  of  his  church,  Epis- 
copalianism,  and  terminating  with  the  most  con- 
sistent of  Protestant  sects,  the  Unitarians? — 
and  if  not,  hoiv  many  denominations  out  of  the 
whole  belong  to  the  true  Protestant  religion, 
the  religion  of  Christ  ? 

4.  /  call  upon  him  to  show  whether  the  Reformers 
received  any  new  ministerial  authority,  after 
the  withdrawal  of  that  which  they  had  received 
from  the  church  ? 


5.  I  call  upon  him,  in  case  no  such  new  authority 
was  received,  to  show  that  the  Protestant  clergy, 
so  called,  have  any  divine  right  to  exercise  the 
Christian  ministry,  more  than  other  educated 
laymen  /" 

Now  I  call  upon  you  to  answer  these  questions. 
Take  them  up,  one  after  the  other,  and  give  to 
each  of  them,  that  simple,  candid  and  ingenuous 
answer  that  each  of  them  demands.  You  are 
bound  to  do  this.  Otherwise,  it  will  be  said  of 
you,  in  the  figurative  language  of  Scripture 
"  this  man  began  to  build,  and  was  not  able  to  fin- 
ish." My  own  opinion  is,  that  you  are  afraid — that 
you  see  the  difficulties  of  the  case,  and  endeavour 
to  shun  them.  But  there  are  venerable  brethren 
and  fathers  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  learned 
professors,  men  ripe  in  age  and  knowledge,  in- 
quire of  them  "  what  is  the  Protestant  Religion  ?" 
Let  them  answer  successively,  the  other  questions. 

If,  however,  neither  you,  nor  they  can  answer 
them,  then  it  follows  that,  whether  you  acknowl- 
edge.it  or  not,  you  are  driven  out  of  the  field  on 
the  present  question.  1st.  Because  you  can- 
not defend,  what  you  cannot  define.  2d.  Because 
you  cannot  discover  so  much  as  one  village  that 
professed,  previous  to  the  soi-disant  Reformation, 
the  doctrines  of  any  sect  of  Protestants.  3d.  Be- 
cause you  cannot  defend  Protestantism  in  the 
g?-oss,  and  yet  you  dare  not  divide  it.  4th.  Because 
the  Reformers  had  no  ministerial  authority.  5th. 
Because,  consequently,  they  could  not  transmit 
any  ministerial  authority  to  their  successors. 

The  peevish  little  disquisition,  on  epistolary 
etiquette,  with  which  you  commence  your  last 
letter,  is  very  curious.  It  would  seem  that  you 
are  determined  to  chastise  the  "bad  taste"  and 
"  useless  tautology"  of  your  friends  in  Princeton 
who  address  you  just  as  I  do,  "  Rev.  Sir."  Why 
is  the  Rev.  Mr.  Alexander,  whose  letter  you  pub- 
lish, guilty  of  this  supposed  "  bad  taste?" 

And  even  some  of  your  own  letters,  (some  at 
least  that  have  your  signature,)  are  guilty  of  that 
"repetition,"  which,  as  themagister  elegantiarum, 
you  pronounce  to  be  a  "  violation  of  good  taste 
and  a  useless  tautology !"  How  was  this1?  But 
the  whole  amounts  to  this,  that  when  you  con- 
descended to  address  me  by  the  title  of  "  Rev. 
Sir,"  you  were  courteous  by  mistake,  and  the  open- 
ing of  your  last  epistle  is  your  apology  for  having 
been  polite.  For  the  rest,  you  should  be  assured 
by  this  time,  that  nothing  from  your  pen  can 
awaken  vanity,  orprovoke  resentment  in  the  bosom 
of  your  opponent. 

This  same  paragraph  winds  up  with  an  attack 
on  the  pretended  uncharitableness  of  the  Catholic 


233 


religion,  touching'  the  doctrine  of  exclusive' salva- 
tion. You  seem  to  feel  that  the  prejudice  of 
Protestants,  on  this  and  other  subjects  is  now 
your  only  dependence,  and  accordingly  you  try  to 
stir  it  up  in  your  favour.  Catholics,  as  you  know, 
or  ought  to  know,  believe  that  out  of  the  true 
church  there  is  no  salvation.  But  they  hold,  as 
explicitly  belonging  to  the  true  church,  all  those 
who  are  members  of  the  great,  primitive,  and  Ca- 
tholic society  of  Christians  in  communion  with 
the  Apostolical  see  of  Rome,  besides,  they  hold, 
as  belonging  implicitly  to  the  true  church,  all 
those  who  do  what  God  requires  of  them  accord- 
ing to  the  measure  of  grace,  knowledge,  and  op- 
portunity which  they  may  have  received.  Hence 
even  among  Protestants  there  may  be  members  of 
the  true  church,  not  indeed  because  they  are  Pro- 
testants, but  because  by  the  inscrutable  permis- 
sion of  God,  they  have  been  brought  up  in  invin- 
cible ignorance  of  the  truth,  which  they  would  em- 
brace^ if  they  knew  it.  But  it  is  manifest  that 
this  plea  of  invincible  ignorance,  is  the  only  one  that 
can  excuse  a  rational  being  for  rejecting  the  re- 
velation of  Christ.  Can  Protestants  say  that 
their  ignorance  is  invincible?  Can  their  ministers, 
more  especially  say  so?  I  judge  them  not,  God 
will  judge".  And  at  his  tribunal  the  plea  of  chance, 
party  attachment,  or  prejudice,  which  binds  them 
to  one  sect  or  another,  will  not  be  admitted. 

Now  let  us  state  the  "exclusive  salvation"  of 
Presbyterianism,  and  see  whether  it  is  not  more 
"  bigoted,"  contracted  and  "  intolerant,"  than 
ours,  which  I  have  just  described.  I  will  not 
misrepresent  as  you  have  done.  But  I  shall 
quote  from  your  own  last  u  Confession  of  Faith" 
•as  amended  in  1821,  (page  111.)  "The  visi- 
ble church consists  of  all  those  through- 
out the  world,  that  profess  the  true  religion,  togeth- 
er with  their  children  ,•  and  is  thekingdcwn  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which 
there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of satvdtiofi."  -This 
doctrine  secures  heaven  to  Presbyterians  "  and 
their  children,"  and  denies  the  "  possibility  of 
salvation  to  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  Protestants 
as  well  as  Catholics.  And  yet  you  talk  about 
"bigotry!"  This  doctrine  dooms  the  whole 
Chrfstian  world  to  perdition,  except  Calvin  and 
the  chosen  race  of  which  he  became  the  father, 
some  1500  years  after  Christ!  !  And  all  Protes- 
tants, who  have  not  Calvin  for  their  religious  pro- 
genitor, are  doomed  to  the  same  destruction.  I 
would  advise  that  the  confession  be  again 
♦'  amended." 

But  then  I  shall  be  told  that  the  Catholic  church 
will  not  extend  the  right,  hand  of  fellowship  to  any 
other.  Certainly  not — and  this  is  one  of  the 
marks  of  her  divinity.  She  could  not  be  the 
church  of  Christ,  if  she  ceased  to  proscribe  the 
systems  invented  in  the  16th  century,  by  a  few  of 
her  own  apostate  children.  She  would  be  unworthy 
of  her  celestial  origin,  if  she  could  stoop  to  Luther's 
religion  or  to  Calvin's,  and  say  "  Hail,  Sister ! 
Thou  also  art  heaven-born  like  myself!"  Truth 
is  unchangeable — I  will  say  more,  it  is  essentially 
intolerant;  in  history,  in  mathematics,  in  medi- 
cine, in  jurisprudence— so  that  when  the  culprit 


forfeits  his  life  to  the  insulted  laws  of  his  coun- 
try, he  perishes  by  the  intolerance  of  truth.  But 
error,  on  the  contrary,  may  be  tolerant  towards  its 
kindred  error,  and  the  liberality  of  Protestantism, 
as  far  as  it  exists,  is  the  evidence  that  the  whole 
system  is  bottomed  on  conscious  uncertainty. 
Thus  Protestantism  subsists  by  excitement,  or 
else  degenerates  into  that  frigid  indifference  to  all 
religious  truth,  which  is  the  incipient  stage  of  in- 
fidelity. It  has  charity  for  deists  and  atheists, 
but  not  for  Catholics,  just  as  Pagan  Rome  was 
tolerant  to  every  thing  but  Christianity.  This 
o-entle  spirit  of  Protestantism  cannot  contend 
against  the  Catholic  church,  without  being  re- 
minded of  its  own  recent  and  spurious  origin. 
Hence  those  who  write  against  the  primitive  faith, 
and  in  defence  of  that  nondescript  called  "pro- 
testantism," are  almost  invariably  observed  to  lose 
their  sense  of  good  manners,  propriety,  decency, 
and  even  self-respect,  which  should  never  be  for- 
gotten. They  believe  in  mysteries  as  well  as 
catholics;  and  yet  they  ridicule  Catholic  myste- 
ries just  in  the  same  language  which  Deists  use 
against  their  own.  They  read  our  books  and  per- 
vert them,  just  as  Deists  read  and  pervert  the 
Scriptures.  Their  arguments  are  deistical,  and  yet 
they  pretend  to  be  Christians  by  excellence ! 
They  insult  Jesus  Christ  in  the  mystery  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  thereby,  teach  the  Deists  to  insult 
him  in  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation. — The  form- 
er doctrine  being  even  more  fully  attested  by 
Scripture  than  the  latter.  They  find,  on  mature 
reflection,  that  in  their  immortal  hatred  of  the 
Catholic  church  they  do  the  work  of  the  deists. 
They  stoop  to  every  thing,  however  low  and  vul- 
gar, that  may  sustain  the  credit  of  their  floating 
systems,  as  they  are  tossed  to  and  fro  by  every 
wind  of  doctrine. — And  seem  to  regret,  as  a  mis- 
fortune, that  the  moorings  of  the  Catholic  church 
are  fixed,  unchangeable  and  eternal. 

If  any  one,  Rev.  Sir,  is  tempted  to  suppose  that 
this  picture  is  overcharged,  I  refer  him,  for  the 
correction  of  his  mistake,  to  the  contents  of  your 
last  letter.  The  perusal  of  it  must  have  been  pain- 
ful to  your  best  friends.  They  must  have  been 
mortified,  to"  perceive  the  advantages  which  it 
yielded  to  your  opponent,  when,  instead  of  digni- 
fied controversy,  such  as  the  question  called  for, 
they  saw  you  descend  to  the.  filthiest  topics, 
couched  and  amplified  in  the  filthiest  terms  known 
to  the  English  language.  It  might  have  been 
expected  from  the  pen  which  composed  the  Report 
of  the  Magdalen  Society  in  New  York,  some  time 
ago  ;  but  from  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge  with 
his  name,  it  was  not  expected.  Delicacy  must 
have  blushed,  and  cast  the  paper  away.  And 
even  among  your  own  people,  I  venture  to  assert 
that  no  lady  will  acknowledge  to  have  read  it.  I 
had  laboured  from  the  commencement  to  hold  you 
up,  and  compel  you  to  be  dignified;  and,  at  this 
advanced  stage  of  the  discussion,  judge  how  it 
grieves  me  to  perceive  that  I  have  toiled  in  vain  ! 
But  I  have  the  satisfaction  to  assure  yon.  that  if 
you  are  determined  to  sink,  you  shall  not  drag  me 
with  you:  you  shall  go  down  alone,  when  I  can 
support  you  no  longer.    In  retailing,  therefere,  the 


334 


scandals  wherewithal  Protestant  calumny  has 
endeavoured  to  blacken  the  character  of  the  Popes 
and  the  church,  you  may  safely  calculate  on  im- 
punity. The  region  to  which  you  have  descend- 
ed, is  to  me  unapproachable.  The  very  indeli- 
cacy of  your  position  shall  protect  you.  And 
though  I  shall  leave  you  "alone  with  your  glory," 
still  I  cannot  help  exclaiming  over  you,  more  in 
pity  than  in  triumph,  "  O !  how  the  mighty  hath 
fallen."  I  have  no  hesitation,  however,  in  assert- 
ing that  your  statement  of  immoralities  at  Rome, 
(which  I  dare  not  repeat)  is  as  false  as  your  man- 
ner of  expressing  it,  is  disgusting.  Name  the 
page  of  the  Catholic  historian,  who  states  what 
you  have  asserted,  and  I  pledge  myself  again  to 
expose  you.  But  how  are  we  to  expect  the  truth 
of  history  from  a  pen,  which,  in  desperation,  cor- 
rupts the  sacred  text  of  Scripture  itself.  Let  me 
give  an  instance.  "The  word  of  God  declares," 
(you  say)  that  "a  bishop  must  be  the  husband  of 
one  wife."  Titus  i.  6.  Now  we  turn  to  your  re- 
ference and  read,  from  St.  Paul  that  you  have  cor- 
rupted the  word  of  God,  since  the  apostle  says  no 
such  thing  !  ! !  St.  Paul  had  no  wife,  and  how 
could  he  say  what  you  make  him  say,  viz.  that  "a 
bishop  must  be  the  husband  of  one  wife."  The 
verse  merely  declares,  in  substance,  that  those 
who  had  been  twice  married,  were  thereby  dis- 
qualified for  the  office  of  Bishop,  but  the  word 
"  must  be"  is  your  own  addition — according,  in- 
deed, with  the  practice  of  Protestant  ministers,  if 
not  of  St.  Paul. 

With  these  observations  I  might  close  my  let- 
ter, since  the  whole  of  your  letter,  besides  the  vile- 
ness  of  the  topics  you  treat  of,  is  entirely  foreign 
to  the  question.  But  having  space  I  shall  fill  it 
up,  with  such  matters  as  I  deem  proper.  And 
first,  it  cannot  be  called  a  digression,  if  I  make  a 
few  remarks  upon  the  course  which  our  Episco- 
pal friends  have  thought  proper  to  adopt,  in  refer- 
ence to  this  controversy. 

Some  months  ago,  when  Bishop  H.  U.  Onder- 
donk's  "charge  on  the  rule  of  faith,"  appeared 
as  a  succedaneum  to  your  labours,  I  felt  it  my 
duty  to  publish  a  "Review"'''  of  it.  That  the  re- 
view, by  exposing  the  false  premises  .of  the  charge, 
destroyed  the  great  body  of  the  Bishop's  conclu- 
sions, was  manifest  to  all  those  who  are  acquaint- 
ed with  the  principles  of  sound  reasoning.  And  1 
have  occasion  to  know,  that  Episcopalians  them- 
selves, who  read  both  productions,  formed  the  same 
opinion,  and  regarded  the  subject  of  the  charge,  as 
an  unseasonable  interference  in  a  pending  discus- 
sion. The  Review  was  treated  by  the  Episcopal 
press  as  very  weak;  hopes  were  expressed  that  no 
notice  should  be  taken  of  it ;  and  a  paper  called 
the  Episcopal  Recorder,  apparently  in  a  fit  of  bad 
humour,  accused  me  of  having  challenged  the 
Bishop  to  a  "  personal  controversy ;"  a  state- 
ment, by  the  way,  which  was  utterly  unfounded 
in  truth.  Still  the  circulation  of  the  Review  was 
checked  by  every  underhand  manoeuvre  that  could 
be  resorted  to  without  palpably  betraying  the  mo- 
tive. In  one  instance  a  bookseller,  (as  I  have 
been  told)  who  enjoyed  some  sectarian  patronage, 
was  actually  forbidden  to  keep  it  for  sale.    And 


yet  the  Review  was  a  weak  production,  not 
worthy  of  a  reply.  When  you  cannot  answer 
an  argument,  say  it  is  too  weak  to  deserve  refu- 
tation. 

Now,  however,  the  Review  has  become  the 
subject  of  anonymous  "  observations,"  in  the  Au- 
gust number  of  the  "Church  Register;"  and 
were  I  to  judge  these  "observations"  by  the  style 
of  the  "charge,"  I  should  say  that  both  came  from 
the  same  pen.  But  the  author  deems  it  prudent 
to  conceal  his  name,  and  I  allude  to  his  essay 
principally  on  that  account.  He  does  not  re- 
fute the  arguments  of  the  "Review;"  nor  yet 
vindicate  the  fallacies  and  contradictions,  which 
had  been  pointed  out  in  the  language  of  the 
"charge."  He  merely  cavils  with  fine  spun  pro- 
lixity. He  merely  nibbles  at  the  substance  of  the 
"  Review."  And  after  you  have  read  the  whole 
of  his  "observations,"  spread  over  fourteen  pages, 
you  rise  from  the  perusal  with  but  vague  and  con- 
fused ideas  of  the  conclusion  which  the  author 
himself  intended  to  establish.  He  treats  the  mat- 
ter under  the  following  heads: 

I.  "  Appellations  ;" — and  contends  that  it  is 
right  to  call  us  by  the  nickname,  "  Romanists." 
Now  the  English  Bishops  in  the  House  of  Peers 
call  us  "  Roman  Catholics,"  except  when  they 
speak  in  derision  with  a  view  to  insult.  And  if 
the  author  of  the  "  observations"  were  asked 
whether  an  Episcopal  Bishop  is  a  Catholic  Bishop, 
he  is  too  modest,  I  am  sure,  to  answer  in  the 
affirmative.  But  Protestants  pay  us  a  high  com- 
pliment, when  they  seek  to  shake  off  their  own 
name,  and  to  clothe  themselves  with  ours.  The 
thing,  however,  is  ridiculous  and  impossible. 

II.  "  Tradition  ;  various  meanings."  This  is 
no  new  idea.  Almost  every  word  in  our  language 
has  "  various  meanings." 

III.  "  Tradition  ;  not  valueless."  What  is  its 
value  1  Why  says  the  author  of  the  "  observa- 
tions," "we  hold,  for  example,  that  Episcopacy 
has  ample  testimony  in  these  (traditional)  re- 
cords." What  will  your  ruling  Elders  think  of 
this?  Just  admit  tradition,  as  far  as  may  be 
necessary  for  the  purposes  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  ;  and  behold — "  Tradition  ;  not  value- 
less." 

IV.  "Tradition;  its  elementary  nature." 
What1?  "Hearsay,"  says  the  author!  Then 
the  preaching  of  Christ,  and  the  Apostles;  the 
miracles  and  doctrines  of  Christianity;  are  noth- 
ing but  "hearsay;"  which  does  not  change  its 
"  elementary  nature,"  by  having  been  afterwards 
committed  to  writing.  Does  the  Church  Register 
not  see  that  this  consequence  follows  from  its  as- 
sertions ] 

V.  "Tradition,  the  Council  of  Nice."  Under 
this  head,  the  author  merely  quotes  Mr.  Milnor 
in  opposition  to  Mr.  Hughes,  and  modestly  ab- 
stains from  deciding  between  them.  He  specu- 
lates on  the  probable  ages  of  the  Bishops,  who 
attended  the  Council ;  and  represents  Mr.  Hughes 
as  contending  that  they  excluded  the  testimony  of 
Scripture,  in  condemning  the  heresy  of  Arius. 
Mr.  Hughes,  fortunately,  never  said,  never  mean* 
to  say,  any  such  thing. 


335 


VI.  "Tradition;  its  fallibility."  Here  the 
author  contends  that  whereas  the  Scripture  was 
"  added  and  advantageous, "  therefore,  Tradition 
is  fallible.  This  is  vicious  reasoning.  St.  John's 
Gospel  was  "added,"  and  it  does  not  therefore 
follow  that  the  other  three  were  fallible.  The 
Review  itself  had  disposed  of  tiiis  sophistry. 

VII.  "Infallibility."  Under  this  head  the 
author  breaks  down  the  bulwarks  of  the  Christian 
Religion  ;  and  tells  the  Infidel  that  Christ  ap- 
pointed a  Church  to  be  the  perpetual  witness  of 
divine  truth,  and  yet  that  this  Church  thus  appoint- 
ed, may  deceive  him  !  If  so,  for  what  purpose  did 
Christ  appoint  it"? 

VIII.  "  Infallibility ;  its  consequences."  Here 
the  author  seems  to  imagine  that  the  world  is  un- 
done, unless  men  agree  to  strip  Christianity  of  its 
pretensions  to  "infallibility."  and  reduce  it  to 
the  uncertainty  of  a  doubtful  problem.  For  this 
service,  also,  the  Deist  will  be  grateful. 

IX.  "Faith,  Infallibility;  Opinion."  Under 
these  three  words  the  author  takes  pains  to  ex- 
clude faith  in  its  theological  sense,  and  contends 
that  both  Catholics  and  Protestants  must  be 
satisfied  with  "  opinion."  This  also  is  giving 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  Deists  and  Athe- 
ists. For  if  Christianity  be  founded  on  mere 
opinion,  it  rests  on  the  same  identical  basis,  which 
supports  infidelity  and  Atheism. 

But  there  is  one  position  assumed  by  the  au- 
thor of  these  "  observations"  which  goes  farther 
towards  the  impeachment  of  Christianity,  than 
any  thing  that  I  have  ever  seen,  even  from  a  Protes- 
tant pen.  It  is  under  the  head  of  "  infallibility." 
The  author  has  discovered  that  the  inspiration  of 
the  Apostles,  was  of  an  "intermittent'''1  character! 
Periodical  infallibility,  the  author  is  willing  to 
grant  them.  But  in  the  intervals,  he  tells  us  that 
even  the  Apostles  were  capable  of  erring,  in  their 
interpretation  of  the  Gospel !  !  !  !  Here  then,  is  a 
desperate  alternative  resorted  to,  in  order  to-  prop 
up  the  "charge,"  and  meet  the  arguments  of*  the 
"  Review."  Another  writer  would  have  explain- 
ed the  11th  verse  of  the  2d  chapter  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  without  destroying  the  inspiration  of  the 
Apostles.  The  fault  ascribed  to  Peter  was  not  the 
teaching  of  erroneous  doctrine,  as  our  "Observer" 
would  make  appear,  but  the  sanctioning  of  a 
practice,  which  might  impede  the  progress  of  the 
Gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  and  was  therefore  in- 
expedient. The  fault  was  of  practice,  and  not  of 
preaching.  And  the  author  of  "observations" 
should  have  observed  this,  before  he  ascribed  it  to 
the  absence  of  inspiration.  But  he  has  denied 
the  infallibility  of  the  Apostles.  He  is  a  Chris- 
tian, and  I  leave  him  to  his  own  reflections  on  the 
injury  he  has  done  to  the  character  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion. 

In  taking  leave  of  the  "Church  Register,"  I 
would  beg  leave  to  state  that  I  have  no  disposition  to 
engage  in  controversy  with  Episcopalians.  But 
they  should  not  provoke  it.  They  mistake  their  in- 
terest, and  forget  their  position  on  the  theological 
map,  whenever  they  provoke  a  controversy  with 
Catholics.  They  can  triumph  over  Presbyterian 
antagonists  in  every  contest ;— but  they  should 


recollect  that  they  stg  indebted  for  the  victory,  to 
the  use  of  weapons  which  they  borrow  from  the 
Catholic  Church — and  the  moment  they  provoke  a 
controversy  with  that  church,  whose  attributes 
they  have  appropriated  to  themselves,  they  shall 
experience  a  prompt  exposure  and  defeat.  They 
shall  be  found  on  the  field  as  naked  and  defence- 
less as  any  other  sect  of  Protestants.  The  host 
of  witnesses  by  whose  testimony  they  bear  down 
their  Presbyterian  adversaries,  will  desert  and  be 
arrayed  against  them  in  every  contest  with  Ca- 
tholics. They  have,  however,  good  people ; 
learned  and  respectable  clergy.  Their  mode  of  at- 
tacking Catholics  is,  at  least,  more  genteel,  if 
not  more  successful,  than  that  which  Presbyte- 
rian ministers  adopt.  They  preserve  decency, 
when  they  write  against  us.  Still  it  is  true, 
however  paradoxical  it  may  appear,  that  whilst 
they  have  more  of  truth  they  have  less  of  consis- 
tency, than  any  other  Protestant  denomination. 
In  this  respect  they  are  directly  the  opposite  of 
the  Unitarians.  But  without  enlarging — I  have 
only  to  say  that  the  author  of  the  "  Charge"  on 
the  "  rule  of  faith,"  and  of  "  observations"  in 
the  "  Chnrch  Register,"  has  come  to  your  aid,  in 
a  way  which  I  cannot  help  regarding,  as  equally 
indelicate  and  unprofitable.  Indelicate,  because 
you  were  the  self-proclaimed  champion  of  Pro- 
testantism ;  and  unprofitable,  because  he  has  not 
succeeded  in  the  attempt  one  whit  bettter  than 
yourself. 

With  regard  to  your  often  repeated  assertion, 
that  transubstantiation  was  introduced  A.  D. 
1215 — your  silence  in  the  last  letter  I  construe 
into  a  tacit  acknowledgment  of  your  mistake. 
Starting  from  that  epoch  I  had  traced  the  doc- 
trine upwards  to  the  apostolic  age,  the  apostles, 
and  Christ  himself.  And  instead  of  contradict- 
ing the  testimonies  adduced,  you  wonder  that  I  did 
not  begin  with  the  Bible  !  But  I  ended  with  it. 
I  gave  abundant  Scripture.  And  instead  of 
meeting  my  arguments  and  reasoning,  you  merely 
cavil  at  the  words  employed  by  Christ,^  in  fact,  the 
incredulous  Jews,  who  heard  him,  did.  Again, 
you  ascribe  to  Catholics  gross  notions  of  Christ's 
real  presence  in  the  eucharist — as  if  he  subsisted 
in  the  manner  of  a  natural  body,  with  sensible  flesh 
and  blood.  This  is  an  old  device  of  Protestants. 
Where  honest  argument  is  impossible,  they  have 
recourse  to  misrepresentation.  What  Catholics 
believe,  what  all  Christians  believed  before  Car- 
lostadius,  what  I  placed  in  my  last  letter  beyond 
the  reach  of  refutation  is,  that  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  truly  and  really  present  under  the 
appearances  of  bread  and  wine  in  the  sacrament 
of  the  eucharist.  This  presence  is  effected  by 
the  Omnipotence  of  God,  and  in  virtue  of  the  in- 
stitution of  Jesus  Christ.  "  Bo  this  for  a  com- 
memoration of  me." 

I  shall  fill  up  the  remainder  of  this  paper,  by 
establishing  the  eucharistic  sacrifice  of  the  new 
law — commonly  called  the  mass.  Sacrifice  is  the 
supreme  action  of  relig-ion — in  which,  by  offer- 
ing up  to  God,  something  in  a  state  of  immo- 
lation we  visibly  and  publicly  recognize  him  as  the 
master  of  life  and  death  and  the  sovereign  Lord  of 


230 


all  things.  From  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
this  action  of  religion  was  commanded  and  ob- 
served among  the  people  of  God.  All  the  ancient 
sacrifices  of  the  Jews  had  reference  to  that  of 
Christ,  upon  the  cross,  and,  on  the  altars  of 
his  church.  This  latter,  is  not  a  new  sacrifice,  or 
another  victim ;  but  it  is  the  same  sacrifice  of 
Calvary,  perpetuated  in  an  unbloody  manner,  by 
Christ's  divine  appointment;  in  which,  according 
to  the  prophecy  of  Malachy,  M  from  the  rising  of 
the  sun  to  the  going  down  of  the  same,  the  name 
of  the  Lord  is  great  among  the  Gentiles  ,■  and  in 
every  place  there  is  sacrifice ;  and  there  is  offer- 
ed to  his  name  a  clean  oblation."  Mai.  i. 
11.  The  same  in  which  the  death  of  the  Lord, 
in  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  is  shown  forth 
till  he  come.  Now  pray  what  other  sacrifice  is 
there  among  the  Gentiles,  that  corresponds  with 
the  Prophet's  prediction,  except  the  eucharistic 
sacrifice  of  the  Catholic  Church  1 — which  is  1  it— 
terally  offered  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  sun. 
And  how  else  is  the  "  death  of  the  Lord  shown 
forth  till  he  come,''''  except  in  the  mystic  shedding 
of  Christ's  blood  in  the  eucharistic  sacrifice  of 
the  altar  ] — even  as  he  commanded.  St.  Paul  al- 
ludes to  the  priesthood  of  Christ  in  direct  and 
positive  connexion,  not  with  the  bloody  sacrifice  as 
it  was  on  the  cross,  but  as  it  is  in  the  Christian 
eucharist.  He  showed  that  the  priesthood  of 
Christ  was  not  according  to  that  of  Aaron,  but 
of  Melchisedech.  And  what  do  we  read  of 
him1?  "Melchisedech,  the  King  of  Salem, 
bringing  forth  bread  and  wine,  for  he  was  the 
priest  of  the  most  high  God;  and  he  blessed  him." 
Gen,  xiv.  18.  Do  you  not  perceive  then,  Rev. 
Sir,  that  in  the  institution  of  the  holy  eucharist, 
Jesus  Christ  actually  exercised  this  priesthood  of 
Melchisedech,  by  changing  "  bread  and  wine," 
into  his  own  body  and  blood,  and  distributing  in 
this  mysterious  manner  among  his  apostles  the 
flesh  of  the  victim,  even  before  its  immolation  on 
the  cross  !  "  Take  ye,  and  eat,"  "  This  is  my 
body."  "  This  is  my  blood  ivhich  shall  be  shed  for 
many  unto  the  remission  of  sins.''''  "  2%*J  do  for  a 
commemoration  of  me."  By  this  act  he  annull- 
ed the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  and  substituted  that 
of  Melchisedech.  And  accordingly  from  that 
day  the  Jewish  sacrifice  has  not  been  offered — 
whereas  the  Christian  sacrifice,  according  to  the 
Priesthood  of  Christ,  and  order  of  Melchisedech, 
has  existed,  and  does  exist  wherever  the  unreform- 
ed  religion  of  the  Redeemer  is  known  from  the  ri- 
sing to  the  setting  sun.  Hence  St.  Paul  in- 
structs the  Hebrews  in  the  difference  between  the 
Jewish  and  the  Christian  sacrifice.  Having  des- 
cribed elsewhere,  the  order  of  the  Christian 
priesthood,  as  superior  to  that  of  Jluron,  he  tells 
the  Jews  "  we  have  an  altar,  whereof  they  have 
no  power  to  eat  who  serve  the  tabernacle."  Heb. 
xiii.  10.  If  it  be  said,  that  he  alluded  to  the 
"  sacrifice  of  praise,"  mentioned  in  one  of  the 
subsequent  verses,  I  reply  that  St.  Paul  could 
not  hinder  or  make  it  unlawful  for  the  Jews  to 
participate  in  such  a  sacrifice.  He  spoke  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  new  law  ;  of  the  altar  on  which 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  was  offered,  under 


the  appearances  of  bread  and  wine,  by  the  new1 
priesthood  according  to  the  order  of  Melchise- 
dech. Hence  we  find  the  early  Fathers  bearing 
unanimous  testimony  to  the  exi&tence  of  this  doc- 
trine, and  this  belief.  And  every  one  of  them 
pointing  to  the  eucharistic  sacrifice  as  the  fulfil- 
ment of  Malachy's  prophecy,  quoted  above.  St. 
Justin  Martyr,  almost,  if  not  quite  contem- 
porary with  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  says, 
"  Christ  instituted  a  sacrifice  of  bread  and  wine, 
which  Christians  offer  up  in  every  place,"  and 
immediately  quotes  the  Prophet  Malachy  i.  11. 
(Dialog.  Cum  Tryphon.)  Irenaeus  the  disciple 
of  Polycarp,  says,  "  Christ,  in  consecrating 
bread  and  wine,  has  instituted  the  sacrifice  of  the 
new  law,  which  the  church  received  from  the 
Apostles,  according  to  the  prophecy  of  Malachy." 
(lren.  L.  iv.  32.)  St.  Cyprian  calls  the  euchar- 
ist, "  a  true  and  full  sacrifice,''''  and  adds  that.  "  as 
Melchisedech  offered  bread  and  wine,  so  Christ 
offered  the  same,  namely,  his  body  and  blood." 
(Epist.  63.)  All  the  later  Fathers  speak  the 
same  language — as  the  learned  Centuriators  of 
Magdeburg  indignantly  acknowledge. 

Here  then  we  find  that  in  the  days  of  St.  Paul, 
St.  Justin,  Irenseus,  Cyprian,  and  onward  till  you 
arrive  at  the  Reformation,  the  religion  of  Christ  had 
its  Priesthood,  its  altar  and  its  sacrifice,  which  sa- 
crifice was  then,  and  still  is,  offered  up  by  the 
Catholic  church  in  every  place  among  the  gentiles. 
Why  then  has  Protestantism  in  its  blind  career,  a- 
bolished  and  destroyed  them  all]  Where  does  it 
pretend  to  fulfil  the  prediction  of  Malachy,  touching 
the  "  sacrifice  and  clean  oblation  among  the  Gen- 
tiles]" Where  is  its  Priesthood]  Where  does  it 
perpetuate  the  immolation  of  Calvary,  "showing 
forth  the  death  of  the  Lord  till  he  come]"  Where 
is  its  "altar  .?"  Where  are  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord,  which  it  affects  to  talk  about,  whilst  it 
boasts  of  having  nothing  left  but  a  piece  of  bread 
and  a  cup  of  wine  ] 

But  then,  the  "  Popish  mass  !"  Yes,  such, 
indeed,  is  the  appellation  of  insult  bestow- 
ed by  Protestant  apostacy  on  the  Eucharistic 
sacrifice  of  the  new  law,  foretold,  as  we  have 
seen  by  the  prophet,  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ 
himself,  and  believed  by  all  the  Christians  in  the 
world  before  Martin  Luther  !  But  then  it  detracts 
from  the  merits  of  the  one  sacrifice  of  the  cross  ? 
No — it  is  the  same  sacrifice  continued  in  a  superna- 
tural manner,  by  which  the  church  daily,  through- 
out the  world,  presents  to  the  eternal  Father, 
the  same  victim  of  atonement  and  propitiation  for 
the  sins  of  men,  in  which  she  shows  forth  the 
death  of  the  Lord  till  he  come;  and  in  which  our 
souls  are  nourished  with  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord.  "  But  Mr.  Breckinridge  says  that  it 
is  idolatrous."  Poor  Mr.  Breckinridge  does  not 
understand  it.  He  says  this,  because  others  have 
said  so  bfifore  him,  and  ignorant  Protestants  think 
so.  "  But  how  can  the  Priest  bring  Christ  down 
from  heaven  by  the  words  of  consecration  ]"  I 
answer  that  Christ  does  not  cease  to  be  in  heaven 
by  being  present  in  the  Eucharist.  And  since  he 
was  pleased  so  to  appoint  and  ordain  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Eucharist,  how  can  the  Protestant 


937 


minister  prevent  him  ?  "  But  Mr.  B.  says  that 
this  doctrine  of  a  sacrifice  in  the  Christian  church 
was  an  innovation  of  the  middle  ages.  So  he 
said  of  the  real  presence,  1215  was  the  point  be- 
yond which  he  would  not  go,  but  I  brought  the 
testimony  of  all  the  preceeding  ages  against  him. 
and  now  he  speaks  no  more  about  1215.  "But 
Protestants  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  They 
say  so,-  but  it  is  after  their  own  manner,  and  not 
as  the  early  Christians  worshipped.  "But  if  the 
Eucharistic  sacrifice  was  a  part  of  the  Christian 
religion,  held  at  all  times,  and  by  all  Christians 
previous  to  the  Reformation,  how  came  the  Pro- 
testants to  abolish  it  ?"  That  is  a  question  which 
I  shall  proceed  to  answer. 

It  will  be  recollected  that,  in  the  first  place, 
Calvin  was  not  a  priest,  and  cosequently  had  no 
power  either  to  consecrate  or  offer  sacrifice.  Hence 
it  is,  that  the  Presbyterian  ministerscall  themselves 
bishops  (overseers)  and  not  priests,  having  never 
received  any  ministerial  authority,  more  than  their 
founder,  for  the  performance  of  any  priestly  func- 
tion. Luther,  on  the  contrary,  being  a  priest, 
continued  to  believe  in  the  real  presence,  and  to 
claim  the  power  of  consecrating  until  his  death. 
But  if  Carlostadt  and  Zuinglius  provoked  the 
implacable  resentment  of  the  great  Reformer  by 
denying  the  real  presence,  without  his  permission  : 
he  was  determined  to  enjoy  the  undivided  glory 
of  abolishing  the  sacrifice  of  mass.  However  he 
had  no  idea,  it  seems,  of  abolishing  it  until  after 
he  had  heard  the  arguments  brought  against  it, 
in  a  dispute  which  he  held  with  the  Devil  on  the 
subject.  He  quotes  the  disputation  at  length  in 
"which  he  argued  strongly  for  the  mass,  but  he 
was  finally  obliged  to  yield  to  the  superior  rea- 
soning of  hisinfernal  Tutor,  and  the  mass  was  ac- 
cordingly abolished.  Protestants,  I  fear,  will  not 
be  edified  at  discovering  such  intimacy,  between 
the  father  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  father  of 
lies.  But  I  only  quote  what  Luther  himself  record- 
ed in  his  writings  (  Wittem.  ed.  (1558.)  vol.  vii.  p. 
228.  229.  230.)  Here  then  we  see  how  and  why 
the  Eucharistic  sacrifice,  was  proscribed  by  the 
two  great  divisions  of  Protestantism  on  the  con- 
tinent of  Europe.  It  was  soon  after  this  abolish- 
ed in  England  by  act  of  Parliament,  and  by  simi- 
lar means  was  it  suppressed  in  other  countries. 

Before  these  events  all  the  Christian  countries 
in  the  universe,  believed  in  the  Eucharistic  sacri- 
fice of  Mass,  as  Catholics  still  believe  in  it. 
And  yet  Protestants  are  generally  as  ignorant  or 
as  unmindful  of  these  important  facts,  as  if their  doc- 
trine of  mere  bread  and  wine  had  originated  with  the 
Apostles,  instead  of  the  Reformers.  This  was  so 
far  from  being  the  case,  that  Luther  in  writing 
against  those  who  began  to  deny  the  real  pres° 
ence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  says  "the  Devil 
seems  to  have  mocked  mankind  in  proposing  to 
them  a  heresy  so  ridiculous  and  contrary  to  Scrip- 
ture, as  that  of  the  Zuinglians."  (Op.  Luth.  De- 
fens.  Verb.  Coenae.) 

Having  thus  established  the  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharistic  Sacrifice  of  the  New  law,  instituted 
and  appointed  by  Jesus  Christ,  believed  by  the 
Church,  and  rejected  by  the  Reformation  about 


three  hundred  years  ago.— I  shall  now  make 
a  few  remarks  on  what  Protestants  call  denying 
the  cup  to  the  laity.  They  accuse  the  Church  of 
dividing  the  Sacrament,  and  administering  it  in 
a  manner  contrary  to  the  command  of  Christ.  In 
both  charges,  however,  they  are  deceived  by  their 
deceivers.  For  in  the  first  place,  Christ  is  pre- 
sent, whole  and  entire,  under  each  of  the  species 
of  the  Sacrament,  as  much  as  under  both.  Con- 
sequently there  is  no  division  of  the  Sacrament; 
since  the  laity  receive  in  the  Communion,  under 
the  form  of  bread,  that  same  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord,  which  the  Priest  receives,  in  the  action 
of  sacrificing  on  the  altar,  under  the  separate 
forms  of  both  bread  and  wine.  But  they  (Pro- 
testants) contend  that,  in  as  much  as  Christ,  at 
the  last  Supper,  administered  this  Eucharist  un- 
der both  forms,  therefore,  say  they,  all  persona 
are  bound  to  receive  under  both.  "  Drink  ye  all 
of  this."  To  this  I  reply,  that  Christ  in  these 
words  addressed  the  Apostles  and  Ministers  of  the 
Church,  whom  he  appointed  to  consecrate  and  offer 
the  sacrifice,  which  he  had  just  instituted.  "  This 
do,  for  a  commemoration  of  me."  The  words 
"drink  ye,"  and  "this  do,"  are  addressed  to  the 
same  persons.  And  if  the  former  be  a  precept,  to 
the  laity,  as  well  as  the  ministry;  it  will  neces- 
sarily follow  that  so  is  the  latter,-  and  yet  Protes- 
tants do  not  allow  the  laity  to  consecrate,  or  pro- 
nounce what  they  call  the  "  blessing"  over  their 
Sacrament  of  mere  bread  and  wine.  Why  not  ? 
if  both  were  precepts. 

But  it  is  said  that  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the 
Church,  Communion  was  administered  to  the 
laity  in  both  kinds.  I  answer  so  it  was:  but  the 
great  question  is,  was  the  administration  of  it  un- 
der both  kinds,  taught  to  be  essential  for  the  re- 
ception of  the  Sacrament?  I  say  no.  And  the 
proof  is,  that  it  was  frequently  even  then  admin- 
istered only  under  one  kind.  Will  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge deny  this"?  If  he  do,  I  shall  take  pains  to 
instruct  him.  If  he  do,  I  shall  quote,  beginning 
with  the  second  century,  Tertullian,  St.  Dyoni- 
sius,  of  Alexandria,  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Basil,  St. 
Chrysostom,  &c,  to  prove  that  he  is  as  much 
mistaken,  as  when  he  said,  that  "  Transubstantia- 
tion  was  as  young  as  1215."  It  will  be  easy  to 
show  him  that  learned  Protestants  have  admitted 
this  fact.  Among  others,  the  Protestant  Bishops 
Forbes,  White,  and  Montague  of  England  not 
only  admit  the  fact,  as  to  the  ancient  practice  of 
the  Church,  but  acknowledge  that  the  authority 
for  giving  the  Communion  under  both  kinds,  is 
rather  from  tradition,  than  from  Scripture  !  Cass- 
ander  and  Grotius,  make  similar  acknowledge- 
ments on  the  subject. 

If  you  are  not  satisfied  with  these,  I  shall  have 
the  pleasure  of  introducing  you  to  the  Calvin- 
istic  Synod  of  your  own  brethren,  held  at  Poic- 
tiers,  iu  France,  1550.  Where  it  was  decreed  that 
"  the  bread  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ought  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  those  who  cannot  drink  ivine.".... 
(Lord's  Supper,  C.  iii.  p.  7.)  Even  the  acts  of 
Parliaments  which  established  the  Communion 
under  both  kinds  in  England,  made  it  lawful  to 
administer  in  one  kind  only,  when  necessity  re- 


238 


quired.  (Heylin's  Hist,  of  Ref.  p.  58 ;  and 
Sparrow's  Collection,  page  17.)  What  have  you 
to  say  against  all  these  witnesses  ]  Here  are 
the  united  testimonies  of  early  Fathers,  Episco- 
pal Bishops,  Protestant  Parliaments,  and  even  a 
Presbyterian  Synod,  all  against  you  1  "What  will 
you  have  to  say  for  yourself? 

But  it  may  be  asked  why  Protestants,  in  the 
face  of  such  evidence,  still  declaim  against  the 
Catholic  usage  on  this  point,  whereas  they  them- 
selves, have  thus  acknowledged  it  to  be  matter  of 
discipline,  subject  to  the  regulation  of  a  Synod,  or 
of  a  Parliament  ?  In  answer  to  this,  I  can  only 
say,  that  the  Reformers  seemed  to  have  had  no 
rule,  to  guide  their  spirit  of  change,  except  the 
rule  fof  mere  gratuitous  opposition  ; — first  turned 
against  the  Church  by  them  all,-  and  then,  by 
each,  against  the  other.  Thus,  for  example,  on 
the  subject  now  treated  of,  Luther  tells  us,  "  if  a 
Council  ordained  or  permitted  both  kinds,  in  spite 
of  the  Council,  says  he,  we  would  take  but  one, 
or  neither,  and  curse  those  who  should  take  both." 
(Form.  Miss.  Tom.  II.  p.  384,  386.)  This  glory 
of  originating,  seems  to  have  been  common  to  all 
the  Reformers ;  and  there  is  no  other  reason  why 
the  Reformation  might  not  have  been  confined  to 
Lutheranism;  except  that  Zuinglius  and  Calvin 
would  have  been  subordinate  in  Saxony,  instead 
of  being  (as  ambition  prompted,)  supreme  in 
Switzerland  ;  seconds  in  Wittemburg,  instead  of 
firsts,  in  Zurich  and  Geneva.  Hence  they  disa- 
greed in  almost  every  thing  except  in  hostility  to- 
wards the  Church,  and  more  especially  towards 
the  Pope.  But  for  the  rest,  they  quarrelled  regu- 
larly; wrote  against,  and  reviled  each  other;  and 
if  we  believe  what  they  have  written,  it  will  be  diffi- 
cult to  escape  the  conviction  that,  a  more  impious 
or  wicked  set  of  men  never  insulted  heaven,  by 
pretending  to  espouse  the  cause  of  religion  on 
earth.  If  we  look  along  the  line  of  their  labours 
from  Luther  at  one  end,  to  Socinus  at  the  other, 
we  will  see  Revelation  made  to  run  the  gauntlet, 
and  the  body  of  Christian  doctrine  rudely  torn, 
limb  from  limb.  The  object  was  to  cut  out  the 
cancer  of  Popery  from  the  breast  of  religion,  and 
thus,  the  daughter  of  God,  brought  under  the  ope- 
ration of  every  "  reforming"  quack,  who  had 
nerve  enough  to  apply  the  knife,  was  wounded, 
with  gash  after  gash,  as  she  passed  from  one  to 
the  other,  until  the  steel  of  Socinus  touched  her 
heart,  and  she  expired !  Such  has  been  the  work 
of  the  Reformation  :  and  Mr.  Breckinridge  says, 
that  the  work  of  the  Reformation  is  "the  Reli- 
gion of  Christ!  !"  Not  only  this;  he  has  actu- 
ally promised  to  prove  it ! ! 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  Reformers  never 
agreed.  Dudith,  one  of  their  number  tells  us, 
that  they  sometimes,  agreed  in  drawing  up  a 
"  Confession  of  Faith,"  but  he  does  not  forget  to 
add,  that  they  quarrelled  about  what  they  had 
written,  almost  before  the  ink  was  dried  on  the 
paper.  There  is  another  remarkable  instance  in 
which  I  find  six  Reformers,  including  Bucer  and 
Melancthon,  agreeing  with  the  great  leader  of  the 
Reformation.  Now  as  these  men  are  the  fathers 
of  the  Protestant  Religion,  and  as  you  are  about 


to  show  that  "the  Protestant  Religion  is  the 
Religion  of  Christ,"  I  deem  it  proper  to  submit 
the  case  for  your  consideration. 

I  allude  to  the  "  indulgence"  granted  by  these 
new  Popes  of  Germany,  to  the  Landgrave  of 
Hesse,  by  virtue  of  which  his  Royal  Highness 
was  authorized  to  be  the  husband  of  "  two" 
wives  at  the  same  time.  They  however  took  the 
precaution  to  recommend  that  it  should  be  done 
as  secretly  as  possible.  And  accordingly,  his 
Royal  Highness  did  marry  a  second  wife,  Mar- 
garet de  Saal,  in  March  1540. 

Now,  Rev.  Sir,  do  not  insinuate  that  this  fact 
is  without  foundation,  it  is  known  to  all  the  learn- 
ed men  of  Europe  and  America,  and  if  any  one  is 
curious  to  see  the  documents  here  referred  to,  I  shall 
have  great  pleasure  in  submitting  to  his  perusal  a 
copy  in  Latin  and  French  of  this  infamous  corres- 
pondence, as  well  as  of  the  marriage  contract;  at- 
tested by  the  regular  notary  public,  as  taken  from 
the  imperial  archives.  When,  therefore,  you  set 
about  redeeming  your  pledge,  by  attempting  to 
prove  that  the  Religion  of  the  Reformation  is  the 
Religion  of  Christ,  do  not  forget  this  decision  of 
the  reformers  in  favour  of  polygamy.  You  have 
said  that  "  indulgences  are  a  bundle  of  licences  to 
commit  sin,"  and  here  is  a  Protestant  "indul- 
gence," corresponding  exactly  with  your  defini- 
tion. If  you  wished  to  know  the  meaning  of  a 
Catholic  "  indulgence,"  you  might  have  learned 
from  our  catechisms,  or  any  catholic  child  in  the 
street,  that  it  is  "  the  remission  of  canonical  pen- 
ance, or  of  temporal  punishment,  which  often  re- 
mains after  the  guilt  of  eternal  punishment  of 
of  sin  have  been  remitted  in  the  sacrament  of 
penance." 

When  you  waste  your  time,  in  attempting  to 
break  the  illustrious  chain  of  apostolic  succession 
which  links  the  present  Bishop  of  Rome  to  the 
first  Apostle,  you  cannot  imagine  how  much  you 
expose  yuorse/f,  in  the  judgment  of  those  who  are 
acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history.  The  year 
"  1215"  was  nothing  to  it.  Equally  ludicrous  is 
your  assertion  that  the  Catholic  Church  adopted 
the  Arian  heresy ; — that  church,  always  in  com- 
munion with  the  See  of  Rome,  branded  Arianism, 
Nestorianism,  Pelagianism,  Lutheranism,  Calvin- 
ism, Socinianism,  and  every  other  "ism"  from 
the  commencement  of  Christianity,  that  presumed 
to  corrupt  the  doctrine  of  which  she  was  the 
guardian,  and  which  she  received  from  the  Apos- 
tles and  from  Christ.  In  a  wordlyou  had  better 
return  to  the  defence  of  the  "  Protestant  reli- 
gion." Tell  us  what  it  is.  How  we  shall 
know  it  by  its  doctrine,  Does  it  acknowledge 
Prelacy1?  Does  it  deny  infant  baptism?  Does 
it  destroy  free  will  1  Does  it  teach  that  men  are 
damned  and  saved  by  the  absolute  force  of  predes- 
tination] 

Tell  us  where  it  waS'«»«and  by  whom  it  was 
possessed  before  Luther.  Tell  us  from  whom  the 
Reformers  received  authority  to  make  a  new  reli- 
gion. Was  it  from  men?  They  were  disowned 
by  all  the  Christian  world.  Was  it  from  God  ? 
Then  where  are  their  miracles  1  Whence  do  the 
present  clergy  of  Protestantism  derive  their  minis- 


339 


terial  character  1  Have  they  a  single  evidence  to 
show  that  they  are  not  mere  laymen,  vested  with 
titles  which  are  essentially  defective.  These, 
Rev.  Sir,  are  the  main  questions.  These  are  the 
crucible,  from  which  the  Protestant  religion  can- 
not pass,  and  to  which,  you  are  manifestly  afraid 
to  trust  it.  Come  up  then,  I  pray  you,  to  the  task 
you  have  assumed,  and  meet  the  question.  Let 
us  decide  it,  and  proceed  to  other  matters.  But 
if  you  cannot,  hecause  the  thing  is  impossible,  then 
give  it  up,  and  let  some  other  quetsion  be  placed 
at  the  head  of  your  letters.  You  have  promised 
to  come  forward  with  your  arguments  letter  after 
letter,  and  if  you  cannot  find  arguments  to  prove 
that  "  the  Protestant  religion  is  the  religion  of 
Christ,"  let  me  know  it,  and  I  will  cease  to  press 
you  on  the  matter.  I  now  request  the  publishers 
to  place  the  rules  of  the  dicussion,  at  the  head  of 
every  letter,  in  order  that  all  men  may  see  your  dis- 
regard of  the  name  with  which  you  signed  them. 
My  letter  No.  23.  is  unanswered,  it  is  a  letter  not  of 
abuse,  but  of  solid  argument,  founded  on  testimo- 


nies which  cannot  be  called  inquestion.  Permit  me 
to  request  that  you  will  read  it  again,  and  try  to 
answer  it.  Reflect  on  the  arguments  and  eviden- 
ces, and  do  not  allow  the  exhausted  patience  of 
your  Protestant  readers  to  suppose  that  the  Pro- 
testant religion  is  not  susceptible  of  at  least, 
some  sort  of  defence.  You  perceive  how  badly 
you  have  succeeded,  by  straying  from  the  Protes- 
tant religion,  and  taking  your  stand  against  the 
real  presence  at  the  year  "  1215,"  with  the  bold 
assertion  that  the  doctrine  was  unknown  before 
that  epoch.  In  reference  to  the  sacrifice  of  mass, 
and  communion  under  one  kind,  your  discursive 
pen  has  been  equally  unfortunate. 

Return  then,  Rev.  Sir,  I  pray  you,  to  "  the  ques- 
tion." The  whole  community  of  our  readers  are 
crying  "  Question,"  "  Question."  Take  up  the 
difficulties  stated  at  the  head  of  this  letter,  and  by 
removing  them,  show  us  that  "  the  Protestant 
Religion  is  the  Religion  of  Christ." 
Yours,  &c. 

John  Hughes. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   30. 


Is  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  Jlugust  22d,  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, 

A  pious,  sensible,  and  well-bred  man, 
Will  not  insult  me;  and  no  other,  can! 

The  exposure  (in  my  last  letter)  of  the  immorali- 
ties, forged  miracles  and  superstitions^  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  seem  deeply  to  have  disturbed  you.  They 
are  new  things  to  most  of  our  fellow-citizens; 
and  yet  they  are  so  true,  so  shocking,  so  incap- 
able of  explanation  or  defence,  that  I  do  not  won- 
der you  are  agitated  by  such  disclosures.  I  can 
both  pardon  and  pity  you,  for  the  rude  and  un- 
gentlemanly  explosion  which  ensues. 

There  are  two  very  important  facts,  however, 
connected  with  this  tirade  against  me.  The  first 
is  the  undesigned  denunciation  which  you  utter 
against  your  own  church,  in  thus  wantonly  assail- 
ing me.  In  all  I  have  said  on  the  subject  of"  immo- 
ralities" in  the  Church  of  Rome,  I  used  the  very  lan- 
guage of  your  own  authors.  Let  the  reader  turn  to 
my  Letter  (No.  XXVIII.)  and  he  will  see  this  to 
be  literally  true.  I  once  thought  of  giving  these 
Roman  Catholic  authorities  in  the  original  Latin, 
or  other  unknown  tongue,  from  a  desire  to  spare 
the  feelings  of  our  readers;  for  most  truly  as  you 
have  said,  the  narrative  is  "  a  Magdalen  report." 
It  is  a  report,  by  your  own  writers,  of  the  de- 
bauches of  Popes,  and  the  infamy  of  Priests,  and 
Monks,  and  Nuns,  in  a  church  calling  itself  holy, 
and  sending  to  perdition  all  who  dissent  from 
her.  T  blushed  while  I  read  them  ;  I  shuddered 
while  I  transcribed  them.  But  the  object  was  to 
make  these  evils  known,  and  the  only  choice  was 
between  suppressing  them,  or  giving  them,  as  I 
did,  in  the  language  of  the  country.  But  if  they 
have  been  perpetrated  in  your  church  ;  (as  your 
standard-authors  say,)  and  if  you  are  so  shocked 
at  my  extracts  from  their  histories,  how  much 
more  should  the  deeds  themselves  revolt  you  1 
Then,  when  you  denounce  me  for  exposing  these 
enormities,  do  you  not  (though  unconsciously) 
pass  the  heaviest  sentence  against  the  institutions 
and  the  clergy  of  your  church,  by  whom  they 
have  been  committed  1 

The  other  important  fact  is  this ;  that  you  give 
this  pledge  :  "I  have  no  hesitation  however,  in  as- 
serting, that  your  statement  of  the  immoralities  at 
Rome,  (which  I  dare  not  repeat)  is  as  false  as  your 
manner  of  expressing  it  is  disgusting.  Name 
the  page  of  the  Catholic  historian,  who  states 
what  you  have  asserted,  and  I  pledge  myself  to 
expose  you."  _  (Letter  No.  XXIX.  2d.  column.)  I 
This  indeed,  is  a  most  auspicious  promise ;  and  | 


I  meet  you  at  once,  with  the  following  Roman 
Catholic  historians.     Thuanus,  Book  37.  page  776. 
A.  D.  1566;  as  cited  in  my  last  letter,  "where 
the  writer  states  that  the  Senate  of  Rome,  insti- 
gated by  the  clergy,  interceded  with  the  Pope  not 
to  expel  the  courtezans  from  Rome,  adding  as  a 
reason,  that  if  he  did,  the  chastity  of  their  fami- 
lies would  be  endangered  by  the  Priests."     Bar- 
ronius's  Annals,  Tom.  X. "pages  765,  766.  A.  D. 
908.     Where  this  Roman  Catholic  historian  in- 
forms us,   "that  Theodora,  a  courtezan  of  noble 
family,  obtained  supreme  controul  in  Rome ;  that 
she  expelled  the  lawful  Popes,  and  put  violent 
and  nefarious  men  into  the  Papal  chair;  that  Pope 
Sergius  III.  committed  adultery  with  her  daugh- 
ter ;  and  their   son  John,  the  offspring  of  their 
crimes,  was  afterwards   Pope  himself;  he  says 
they  were  apostate  Popes,  and  not  Apostolical; 
calls  the  times  deplorable  ;  and  the  scandal  over- 
whelming;   says    the   church   was   governed  by 
strumpets;  and   forgotten  by  God."     He  quotes 
also  various  Roman   Catholic  authors  in   proof, 
viz:    Luitprand,   Sigebert,  Auxilius,  Adam,  &c. 
Dupin,  a  Roman  Catholic  historian,  Vol.  4.  Cent. 
10.  Chap.  2.;  confirms  the  above   disgusting  nar- 
rative ;  and  gives  also  at  the  same  time  a  his- 
tory  of  the   Popedom,  during  the  holy  lives   of 
Popes  Formosus;   Stephen  VI;  John  IX  ;  Bene- 
dict  IV;    Sergius;  John  X;    Leo  VI;    Stephen 
VII ;  John  XI ;    John  XII ;  &c.  which  for  blood, 
debauch,   murder,  rapine,  and  manifold   villiany, 
exceeded  the  worst  days  of  Heathen   Rome.     Of 
Sergius  he  says,  "  this  man   is  esteemed  a  mon- 
ster, not  only  for  his  ambition,  and  the  violent 
proceedings  he  was  guilty  of,  but  on  account  of 
his   loose  morals."     He  had  a  bastard  son  who 
was  afterwards   promoted    to    the   Popedom,   as 
John  XI.     "  He  tells  us  this  John  was  a  mon- 
ster; Stephen  the  VI.   was   strangled;  Romanus 
was  Pope  a  few  months;  Thcodorus  only  twenty 
days;  and   Leo  V.  forty  days;  Sergius  usurped 
the  Holy  See,  imprisoning  his  predecessor;  John 
XII.  was  a   slave  to  vice  and    debauch."     The 
same  writer  (Vol.  7.  c.  16.  page  14.)  says,  "Pope 
Alexander  VI.  died  August  17,  1503,  by  the  poi- 
son which  he  had  prepared   for  another,   loaded 
with  the  iniquities  of  himself  and  his  natural  son 
Caesar  Borgea."     I  present  to  your  consideration 
this  picture.     These  are  specimens  of  the  Popes. 
As  to  the  Priesthood  at  large,  and  also  the  Mo- 
nasteries, Nunneries,  &c.f  and    the  immoral  doc- 
trines as  well  as  lives  of  the  Clergy,  Jesuits,  &c. 
I  have  in   several   successive  letters  given  full, 
satisfactory,  unanswered,  and  unnoticed  authori- 
ties.    To  them  I  now  refer  you.     If  they  are  not 


•-ill 


sufficient,  enough  is  in  reserve.     The  worst,  the 
half  has  not  been  told  ! 

Now  according  to  your  promise,  I  call  on  you 
to  meet  these  testimonies  from  Roman  Catholic 
historians.  Do  it  with  candour,  and  without  eva- 
sion, so  that  the  community  may  see  before  we 
close  this  discussion,  one  example  from  your  pen, 
of  ingenuous  thinking,  and  an  elevated  love,  not 
of  victory,  but  of  truth. 

In  my  last  letter  I  exposed  the  palpable  rebel- 
lion of  the  Church  of  Rome  against  the  laws  of 
God,  on  the  subject  of  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy. 
You  make  no  other  reply  than  the  following, 
which  supplies  with  insolence,  the  lack  of  argu- 
ment. "  But  how  are  we  to  expect  the  truth  of 
history  from  a  pen,  which,  in  desperation,  cor- 
rupts the  sacred  text  of  Scripture  itself." 

Here  we  have  a  sample  of  your  usual  disingenu- 
ousness.  In  1  Tim.  iii.  2.  it  is  written  in  your 
standard  Bible,  "  Oportet  ergo  Episcopum  irre- 
prehensibilem,  esse  unius  uxori3,  virum."  This 
is  correctly  translated  in  our  English  version,  "a 
Bishop  must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one 
wife."  Again  in  Titus  i.  6.  "If  any  (Bishop) 
be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife."  Will 
you  compare  these  verses  and  say  then,  with 
reckless  disregard  of  truth,  that  I  corrupt  the  sa- 
cred text,  when  your  own  Bible  confronts  you  ] 
Does  not  this  distinctly  declare  that  a  Bishop 
m ay  marry  ;  that  if  he  should  he  must  he  the  hus- 
band of  one  wife  !  And  in  Titus  i.  6.,  the  refer- 
ence is  not  to  a  Bishop  who  once  had  a  wife,  but 
who  was  living  in  that  relation  when  the  Apostle 
wrote,  viz  :  "  if  a  Bishop  be — the  husband  of  one 
wife."  Peter  "  the  first  Pope,"  had  a  wife, 
though  Paul  had  not ;  and  Paul  writes,  "  mar- 
riage is  honourable  in  all."  But  your  church 
forbids  marriage  to  her  clergy.  Is  not  this  fight- 
ing against  God  1  While  the  word  of  God  thus 
extends  to  all  the  privilege  of  matrimony,  your 
Bellarmine  says,  (I  hope  you  will  notice  this 
also  in  your  next  letter)  "  It  is  a  greater  evil  to 
marry  than  to  commit  fornication,"  i.  e.  for  those 
under  a  vow  of  celibacy.  (Bell.  b.  2.  De  Mon. 
c.  34.)  and  Cardinal  Campegius  (Apud.  Sleidan. 
b.  4.)  openly  declared  before  the  magistrates  of 
Strasburg ;  "  that  it  was  a  greater  sin  for  Priests 
to  marry  than  to  keep  several  concubines  in  their 
own  houses."  Quod  sacerdotes  mariti  fiant, 
giavius  esse  peccatum,  quam  si  plurimas  domi- 
meritrices  alant ! 

We  come  next  to  the  charge  of  bigotry,  and 
an  intollerant,  exclusive  spirit.  In  proof  of  this 
I  adduced  the  creed  of  your  church,  the  declara- 
tion of  a  pope,  and  the  Rhemish  Translators  at 
large.  As  you  deny  none  of  these,  we  are  I  sup- 
pose to  take  them  for  granted.  Your  rejoinder,  in 
charging  a  similar  spirit  on  the  Presbyterian 
church,  is  of  a  piece  with  your  extracts  from  Ter- 
tullian,  the  works  of  Luther,  Wesley,  and  the  life 
of  Bishop  Jewel.  In  citing  a  paragraph  from  the 
25th  chap,  of  our  Confession  of  Faith,  which  I  in- 
sert below,  entire,  you  leave  out  that  part  which  is 
put  in  italics.  It  is  as  follows:  "The  visible 
church,  which  is  also  Catholic,  or  universal,  under 
the  Gospel  (not  confined  to  one   nation  as  before  un- 


der the  law)  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the 
world,  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together  with 
their  children;  and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out 
of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salva- 
tion." On  this  passage  thus  mutilated  you  make 
the  following  extraordinary  comment.  "  This 
doctrine  secures  heaven  to  Presbyterians  and  their 
children,  and  denies  the  'possibility'  of  salva- 
tion to  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  Protestants  as 
well  as  Catholics.  And  yet  you  talk  about  bi- 
gotry." Perhaps  no  conclusion  was  ever  drawn 
having  less  connection  with  its  promises.  It  is 
utterly  gratuitous  and  wantonly  perverse.  So  far 
from  being  exclusive,  the  name  of  Presbyterian  is 
not  mentioned  in  this  paragraph.  The  definition 
takes  away  all  limits  more  narrow  than  "  the  uni- 
versal church  under  the  Gospel ;"  and  it  makes 
the  church  to  "  consist,''''  not  of  Presbyterians,  but 
"  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  that  profess 
the  true  religion,  together  with  their  children.'7 
In  the  very  next  chap.,  also,  is  the  following  dis- 
tinct condemnation  of  all  narrow  feelings  and 
bigoted  opinions.  "  Saints  by  profession,  are 
bound  to  maintain  a  holy  fellowship  and  commu- 
nion in  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  performing 
such  other  spiritual  services  as  tend  to  their  mu- 
tual edification;  as  also  in  relieving  each  other  in 
outward  things,  according  to  their  several  abili- 
ties and  necessities,  which  communion,  as  God 
offereth  opportunity,  is  to  be  extended  unto  all 
those,  who,  in  every  place,  call  upon  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus."  In  chap.  1.  of  book  1.  form 
of  government  Sec.  5.  it  is  written,  "  they  (i.  e.  the 
Presb.  ch.)  believe  that  there  are  truths  and  forms, 
with  respect  to  which,  men  of  good  character  and 
principles  may  differ.  And  in  all  this  they  think 
it  the  duty,  both  of  private  Christians  and  socie- 
ties, to  exercise  mutual  forbearance  towards  each 
other."  Such  is  the  spirit  of  liberality  and  love 
which  our  standards  proclaim,  and  in  which  our 
people  glory.  Thus  it  is  that  we  delight  to  ex- 
tend the  right  had  of  fellowship  to  all  who  love 
our  Lord  Jesus,  and  say  "  hail  aster"  to  every 
church  that  "  holds  the  head,"  that  is  Christ.  To 
you  we  leave  the  service  of  making  the  truth 
"  intollerant"  It  is  a  discovery  reserved  for  the 
Papacy  ;  and  you  glory  in  your  shame  when  you 
connect  such  contradictions.  Now  in  contrast  with 
the  above  extracts,  hear  the  doctrine  of  the  church 
of  Rome.  The  canon  law  declares  "  it  is  necessary 
to  salvation  for  every  human  being  to  be  subject 
to  the  Roman  Pontiff."  The  creed  of  the  church,  by 
which  all  its  members  are  bound,  under  a  solemn 
oath,  professes,  "that  without  the  true  faith  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  church,  none  can  be  saved." 
Mr.  Hughes  says,  letter  27,  "  no  Christians  agreed 
with  Protestants  in  doctrine,  from  the  days  of 
Christ  until  the  coming  of  Luther  ;  and  very  few 
since,"  Of  course  very  few  Protestants  are  saved  ! 
Indeed  this  is  more  than  intimated,  in  the  succeed- 
ing paragraph.  If  this  be  so,  then  truly  it  is  one 
ofthe  greatest  calamities  that  ever  befell  the  Ame- 
rican Protestants,  that  you  have  been  selected  to 
"  preach  up  to  them"  "  the  only  true  church;" 
for  at  every  step,  you  confirm   them  more  and 


242 


more  in  fatal  error  !  I  will  only  add  on  this  topic, 
that  to  this  day,  once  every  year,  the  Pope  at. 
Rome,  publicly,  and  in  full  form,  excommunicates 
all  Protestants ;  and  absolution  is  refused  to  all  those 
who  harbor  these  heretics,  vbho  read  their  books,  &c. 
&c;  and  all  ecclesiastical  persons  (Mr.  Hughes 
included)  are  required  to  publish  the  Bull,  that 
the  faithful  may  know  its  contents  ! 

I  would  now  resume  the  discussion  on   Tran- 
substantiation.  This,  with  its  adjuncts  is  undoubt- 
edly one  of  the  distinguishing,  and   radical  doc- 
trines of  the  church  of  Rome.     You  have  present- 
ed it  at  large,  in  Letter  No.  27.  Before  proceeding 
to  examine  your  arguments  I  will  refresh  the 
memory  of  the  reader  by  giving  the  doctrine  in 
the  words  of  your  church.     The  Council  of  Trent 
at  its  13th  Session  thus  decreed  touching  the  doc- 
trine of  Transubstantiation.     "  In  the  first  place 
the  holy  Council  teacheth,  and  openly  and  plain- 
ly professeth,  that  our  Lord  Jesus    Christ,  true 
God  and  man,  is   truly,  really,  and  substantially 
contained  in  the  pure  sacrament  of  the  holy  Eu- 
charist, after  the  consecration   of  the  bread  and 
wine,  and  under  the  species  of  those  sensible  ob- 
jects."     "  By  the  consecration  of  the  bread   and 
wine  there  is  effected  a  conversion  of  the  whole 
substance,  the  bread  into  the  substance  of  the  body 
of  Christ  our  Lord,  and  of  the  whole  substance 
of  the  wine  into  the  substance  of  his  blood  ,  which 
conversion  is    fitly  and  properly  termed   by  the 
Holy  Catholic  church,  Transubstantiat^n.^     "  If 
any  one  shall  deny  that  in  the  most  holy  sacra- 
ment of  the  Eucharist,  there  are  contained  truly, 
really,  and  substantially,  the  body  and  blood,  to- 
gether with  the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ;  or  say  that  he  is  in  it  only  as  a  sign  or 
figure  or  by  his  power,  let  him    be  accursed." 
The  following  extracts  from  the  Catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  part  the  2d,  Chap,  the  4th  de- 
fine the  method  of  consecration,  &c.  &c.     "  Here 
the  pastor  will  also  explain   to  the  faithful  that 
in  this  sacrament  not  only  the  true  body  of  Christ, 
and  all  the  constituents  of  a  true  body,  as  bones 
and  sinews  (velut  ossa  et  nervos)  but  also  Christ, 
whole  and  entire  are  contained. — "  The  Catholic 
Church,  then,  firmly  believes,  and  openly  profess- 
es, that  in  this  sacrament  the  words  of  consecration 
accomplish  three  things  ;  first,  that  the  true  and  real 
body  of  Christ,  the  same  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin, 
and  is  now  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  in 
heaven,  is  rendered  present  in  the  holy  eucharist; 
secondly,  that  however  repugnant  it  may  appear 
to  the  dictate  of  the  senses,  no  substance  of  the  ele- 
ments remains  in  the  sacraments ;  and  thirdly,  a 
natural  consequence  of  the  two  preceding,  and 
one  which  the  words  of  consecration   also   ex- 
press, that  the  accidents  which  present  themselves 
to  the  eyes,  or  other  senses,  exist  in  a  wonderful 
and  ineffable  manner,  without  a  subject.     All  the 
accidents  of  bread  and  wine  we   see  ;  but  they 
inhere  in  no  substance,  and  exist  independently  of 
any.     The  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  is  so 
changed   into  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord, 
that  they  altogether  cease  to  be  the  substance  of 
bread  and  wine."     "  The  accidents  cannot  inhere 
in  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  they  must  there- 


fore, above  the  xohole  order  of  nature,  subsist  of 
themselves,  inhering  in  no  subject."  Finally, 
the  efficacy  of  the  consecrating  act,  depends  upon 
the  intention  of  the  officiating  priest,  so  that  if  he 
lacks  the  intention,  to  Transubstantiate,  no 
change  takes  place,  and  the  bread  and  wine 
remain  the  same,  (see  6th  chap.  Coun.  Tr.  Can. 
11.)  "  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  when  ministers 
perform  and  confer  a  sacrament,  it  is  not  necessa- 
ry that  they  should  at  least  have  the  intention  to 
do  what  the  church  does,  let  him  be  accursed." 
Tn  defence  of  this  doctrine,  you  adduced  in  let- 
ter No.  27,  the  6th  chap,  of  John.  In  letter  28, 
I  exposed  so  fully  your  improper  use  of  that  pas- 
sage, that  you  seem  to  have  abandoned  its  further 
aid  in  defence  of  transubstantiation.  Your  appli- 
cation of  it  to  the  defence  of  the  real  presence,  is 
refuted  by  two  popes,  four  cardinals,  two  arch- 
bishops, five  bishops,  and  doctors,  and  professors 
of  divinity  to^such  a  number  as  to  make  in  all  no  less 
than  thirty  Papal  writers,  who  deny  that  the  6th 
chap,  of  John  gives  any  support  to  transubstantia- 
tion. The  only  other  portions  of  Scripture  which 
you  adduce  in  support  of  this  doctrine,  are  found  in 
the  accouut  of  the  institution  of  the  eucharist  given 
by  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  Paul.  The  Douay 
and  English  translations  used  in  this  country, 
differ  so  little  from  each  other  in  these  passages, 
that  either  will  suffice  to  exhibit  the  language  of 
institution.     We' give  them  in  our  translation. 

Matthew  xxvi.  26 — 29.  "  And  as  they  were 
eating;  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed  it,  and  brake 
it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said,  take, 
eat ;  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and 
gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  Drink 
ye  all  of  it.  For  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many,  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  But  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  not 
drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  wine,  until 
that  day  when  I  drink  it  new  with  you  in  my 
Father's  Kingdom."  Mark  xiv.  22—25,  differs 
from  Matthew  only  by  adding,  "  and  they  all 
drank  of  it."  Luke  xxii.  19 — 20,  adds:  "  This  do 
in  remembrance  of  me."  1  Cor.  xi.  23 — 27. 
"  The  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he 
was  betrayed,  took  bread ;  and  when  he  had 
given  thanks,  he  brake  it  and  said,  Take,  eat; 
this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you  ;  this 
do  in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same  man- 
ner also,  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped, 
saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my 
blood  ;  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in 
remembrance  of  me,"  &c.  "Wherefore,  whosoever 
shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup  of  the 
Lord,  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  a^id 
blood  of  the  Lord." 

I.  The  question  between  us  is  not,  whether 
Christ  be  present  in  this  sacrament ;  but  how  he 
is  present.  Evangelical  Protestants  all  allow, 
as  their  standards  clearly  evince,  that  Christ  is 
spiritually  present ;  and  the  truth  of  Christ's 
words  recorded  above,  they  undoubtedly  believe. 
But  they  utterly  deny  that  the  bread  and  wine 
are  by  the  consecration  of  a  priest  changed  into 
the  very,  the  real  body  and  blood  u  bones  and 
sinews"  of  Christ,  so  that  the  bread  and  wine  no 


243 


longer  remain;  but  under  their  appearance  is 
contained  that  same  Christ  who  was  born  of  the 
Virgin,  together  with  his  soul  and  divinity. 
This  we  deny  to  be  meant  in  the  words  of  the  in- 
stitution. In  fact  it  is  upon  the  wrong  interpreta- 
tion of  these  passages  that  the  proof  of  transub- 
stantiation  rests.  Here  observe,  there  is  bo  ne- 
cessity of  taking  the  words  literally.  You  ad- 
mit that  there  are  figures  used  in  the  Bible. 
Why  then  take  these  literally?  When  the  Apos- 
tle tells  us  (Ephesians  v.  30.)  "  We  are  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  body,  of  his  jlesh,  and  of  his 
bones,-"  and  calls  it  "a  great  mystery" — is  it 
literal  or  figurative  ?  Surely  he  does  not  mean  to 
say  the  bones  and  flesh  of  Christ  are  substantially 
in  every  believer  ?  When  Christians  are  said, 
(Hebs.  vi.  4.)  "  To  be  made  partakers  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,''''  are  we  to  understand  that  they  are 
really  deified  ?  Or  (1.  Cor.  x.  17.)  "We  being 
many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body.''''  Does  it  mean 
that  all  Christians  are  first  compounded  into  one 
body,  a"nd  then  that  body  is  transmuted  into  one 
great  loaf?  Yet  literally  taken  it  must  so  1 
You  will  not  deny  that  figures  may  be  used  in  a 
sacrament.  For  this  is  the  very  nature  of  a  sa- 
crament, to  be  an  outward  sign  and  figure  of 
some  invisible  grace  and  benefit.  Besides,  the 
words  of  this  sacrament  are  replete  with  figure. 
When  it  is  said,  "this  cup  is  the  New  Testament 
in  my  blood,"  there  is  a  figure  ;  viz.  the  cup  is  put 
for  the  wine  ,•  for  if  it  be  literal,  then  the  cup  is 
changed  (and  not  the  wine ;)  and  the  cup  is 
changed  into  the  New  Testament,  and  not  into 
Chrisfs  blood.  Or  if  you  say  that  it  is  the  wine 
which  is  changed  into  a  Testament,  then  we  have 
this  absurdity,  viz.  that  the  testator,  is  also  the 
testament.  But  you  will  not  deny  that  it  is  by 
a  figure  that  the  cup  is  called,  the  New  Testa- 
ment. I  ask,  then,  why  it  may  not  be  by  a  figure, 
that  the  wine  is  called  the  blood  of  Christ,  and 
the  bread  his  body  1  Again,  these  words  "  this 
cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood,"  plainly 
show  that  what  is  in  the  cup  is  not  really  the 
blood  of  Christ.  For  suppose  "  this  cup"  to 
mean  "  this  blood,"  then  we  make  Christ  say 
"  this  blood  is  the  New  Testament  in  my 
blood ;"  that  is,  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  order  to 
avoid  this  absurdity,  Bellarmine  actually  makes 
two  sorts  of  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  (Book  1. 
chap.  11.  of  the  Eucharist.)  The  conclusion, 
then,  is  irresistable,  that  since  literally  taken, 
it  makes  nonsense,  it  is  spoken  in  a  figure. 
Besides,  if  the  words  "  this  is  my  body,"  are  to 
be  taken  literally,  then  the  bread  is  changed  into 
the  body  of  the  Priest  and  not  the  body  of  Christ, 
as  it  is  the  Priest  who  speaks.  For  your  church 
holds,  that  the  Priest  (tanquam  gerens  personam 
Christi,)  personates  Qhrist,  when  he  repeats  the 
words  of  consecration  ;  and  that  they  operate  what 
they  signify;  Hence  it  is  the  priesfs  body  and 
not  Chrisfs,  which  is  wrought  into  the  sacrament; 
and  the  priest's  body  which  the  people  worship. 
If  not,  then  the  words  of  consecration,  were  only 
historical,  and  used  in  a.  figure.  Observe  still  fur- 
ther that  the  words  are  not,  "  this  shall  be  my 


body,"  nor  "  this  is  made,  or  shall  be  changed  into 
my  body,"  but  "  this  is  my  body."     Now  the  Word 
"this"  can  refer  to  no  other  substance,  than  that 
which   was  present   when  our   Lord  spoke  that 
word.     But  the  only  substance  which  was  then 
present   was  bread.     This   is   acknowledged   by 
your  own  authorities.     In  the  gloss  upon  Gratian, 
(De  Consecrat.  Dist.  Cap.  55.)  it  is  said,  "  it  is 
impossible  that  bread  should  be  the  body  of  Christ." 
Bellarmine  also  owns,  (Book  1.  chap.  1.  on  the 
Eucharist)  "  that  these  words  viz.  « this  is  my 
body,'  must  be  taken  as  a  figure,  bread  being  the 
body  of  Christ  in  signification  (significative)   or 
else  it  is  plainly  absurd  and  impossible ,-  for  it  can- 
not be  that  bread  shov.ld  be  the  body  of  Christ." 
It  clearly  appears  then,  that  when   Christ  said 
"  this  is  my  body,"  he  meant  it  in  a  figure.  Hence, 
in  Luke  22.  19,  it  is   written  :    "  He  took  bread 
and  gave  thanks  and  gave  it  unto   them  saying, 
this  is  my  body,  which  is  given  for  you,  this  do 
in  remembrance  of  me."     Now  what  did  he  call 
his  body,  but  that  which  he  gave  to  his  disciples  ? 
What  did   he  give   to  them,  but  that  which  he 
broke  ?     And  what  was  it  he  broke,  but  what  he 
took  ?     And  does  not  Luke  tell   us,  in  so  many 
words  that  he  took  bread  ?         Then  was  it  not  of 
the   bread  he  spoke  when  he  said   "  this  is  my 
body  ?"     But  could   bread    be  his   body   in  any 
other  way  than  as  a  sacrament,  in  a  figure,  or  as 
he  expressly  tells  us,  a   memorial  of  his  body? 
The  Apostle  Paul  puts  this  subject  beyond  doubt, 
(in  1st  Cor.  10.  16)  "the  bread  which  we  break, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ."  Is 
not  this  a  distinct  declaration,  that  the  breadis  the 
body  of  Christ]     And  if  so,  did   not  Bellarmine 
rightly  say  that  we  must  understand  it  figurative- 
ly, since  it  is  impossible  that  bread  should  be 
literally  the  body  of  Christ1?     Let  it  not  be  said 
that  Paul  meant  that  which  once  was  bread,  but 
now  is  the  real  body  of  Christ ;  for  he  says  "  the 
bread  which  we  break,- "  and   you  own  that  the 
real  body  of  Christ  cannot  be  broken.     So  that  it 
is  bread   and  only  bread  which   is  meant  in  the 
words  of  institution ;  and  therefore,  when  Christ 
said  "  this  is  my  body,"  he  spoke  of  it  sacra- 
mentally   and  in   a  figure ,-  and   not   of  his   real 
body. 

This  is,  if  possible,  still  more  plain  in  the  other 
part  of  the  Sacrament.  Matth.  xxvi.  27, 28.  "  He 
took  the  cup  and  gave  thanks  and  gave  it  to  them, 
saying,  drink  ye  all  of  it,  for  this  is  my  blood  of 
the  New  Testament :"  or  as  Luke  and  Paul  recite 
it,  "  this  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my 
blood."  Now  your  Church  acknowledges,  that 
Christ  delivered  these  words  before  the  act  of  con- 
secration ;  and  therefore,  before  the  change  took 
place.  Hence  it  was  wine,  which  he  called  his 
blood;  it  was  wine  of  which  he  said,  "drink 
ye  all  of  it;"  or  as  he  also  called  it  the  "fruit  of 
the  vine."  Now  since  you  must  confess  that  it 
is  impossible  for  vrine,  or  the  fruit  of  the  vine  to 
be  really  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  since  notwith- 
standing, Christ  called  it  his  blood  before  conse- 
cration, he  could  have  meant  nothing  else  than 
his  blood  in  a  figure,  or  sacramentally. 

It  appears  then,  incontestably  from  anexamina- 


244 


lion  of  the  words  of  the  institution,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Transubstantiation  is  not  taught  in  them; 
that  so  far  from  this,  it  reduces  the  language  of 
Christ  to  inextricable  difficulties  and  absurdities 
to  put  such  a  meaning  on-  his  words  ;  and  that 
the  only  consistent  and  intelligible  sense  of 
which  they  are  capacle  it  that  which  evangelical 
Protestants  give  them.  It  is  remarkable  also, 
how  strictly  our  interpretation  accords  with  the 
usage  of  the  sacred  writers.  Thus,  Genesis  xli. 
26.%  "The  seven  good  kine  are  (i.e.  represent) 
seven  years ;  and  the  seven  good  ears  are,  seven 
years."  Daniel  vii.  24.  "  The  ten  horns  out  of 
this  kingdom  are  (/.  e.  signify)  ten  kings  that 
shall  arise."  1  Cor.  x.  4.  "  They  drank  of  that 
spiritual  rock  which  followed  them,  and  that  rock 
was  (represented)  Christ."  Rev.  i.  20.  "The 
seven  stars  are  (represent)  the  angels  of  the 
seven  churches;  and  the  seven  candlesticks  are 
(represent)  the  seven  churches."  Matth.  xiii. 
38,39.  "The  good  seed  are  (represent  or  sig- 
nify) the  children  of  the  kingdom  ;  the  tares  are 
(signify)  the  children  of  the  wicked  one :  the 
enemy  is  (signifies)  the  devil ;  the  harvest  is 
(signifies)  the  end  of  the  world  ;  and  the  reapers 
are  (signify)  the  angels."  With  such  undoubted 
testimony  from  the  word  of  God°,  who  can  ques- 
tion it,  that  when  Christ  say  "  this  is  my  body," 
he  means  this  represents  my  body.  We  here  sub- 
join a  very  striking  example  from  Augustine  (De 
doctrin.  Christian,  Lib.  3.  cap.  46.)  which  speaks 
volumes  as  to  your  false  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation, whether  you  found  it  on  the  6th  chapter 
of  John,  or  on  the  words  of  institution.  "If, 
says  he,  the  saying  be  perceptive,  either  forbid- 
ding a  wicked  action,  or  commanding  to  do  that 
which  is  good,  it  is  no  figurative  saying  ;  but  if 
it  seems  to  command  any  villiany  or  wickedness, 
or  forbid  what  is  profitable  and  good,  it  is  figu- 
rative. This  saying  » except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood  ye  have  no 
life  in  you,'  (John  vi.  53.)  seems  to  command  a 
villianous,  or  wicked  thing ;  it  is  therefore  a  fig- 
ure, enjoining  us  to  communicate  in  the  passion 
of  our  Lord,  and  to  lay  it  up  in  dear  and  profit- 
able remembrance,  that  his  flesh  was  crucified 
and  wounded  for  our  sakes." 

From  the  above  examination,  how  clear  is  the 
proof,  that  the  word  of  God  entirely  fails  you 
in  sustaining  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation. 
But  to  show  you  that  this  is  not  merely  a  Protes- 
tant statement,  let  me  point  you  again  to  Roman 
Catholic  authorities.  Bellarmine  admits,  (Book 
III.  Chap.  23.  on  Euch.)  "  though  the  Scripture 
quoted  by  us  above  seems  clear  to  us,  and  ought  to 
convince  any  man  who  is  not  froward,  yet  it  may 
justly  be  doubted  whether  it  be  so,  (that  is,  whe- 
ther Transubstantiation  can  be  proved  from  Scrip- 
ture) when  the  most  learned  and  acute  men,  such 
as  Scotus  in  particular,  hold  a  contrary  opinion." 
Cardinal  Cajetan,  a  famous  Roman  Catholic  wri- 
ter, says,  (Notes  on  Aquinas,  p.  3.  q.  75.  Art.  I. 
&c.)  "  The  other  point  which  the  Gospel  has  not 
expounded  expressly,  that  is  the  change  of  the 
bread  into  the  body  of  Christ;  we  have  received 
rrom  the  Church:''  And  again.  "There  appears 
nothing  in  the  Gospel  to  compel  any  man  to  un- 


derstand these  words,  '  this  is  my  body,"1  in  a  pro- 
per sense.  Nay,  the  presence  (of  Christ)  which 
the  Church  holdeth,  cannot  be  proved,  unless  the 
declaration  of  the  Church  be  added."  These 
words  are  expunged  from  the  Roman  edition  of 
Cajetan,  by  order  of  Pope  Pius  V. ! !  !  It  is  also 
undeniable,  that  Durand,  Ocham  and  the  Cardinal 
of  Cambray,  Gabriel  Biel,  Cardinal  Contarinus, 
Melchoir  Cane,  and  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester, 
a  martyr  of  your  Church,  unite  with  Scotus,  in 
granting  that  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation 
cannot  be  proved  from  So-ipture.  And  now,  here 
we  might  rest  our  cause.  For  if  the  word  of 
God  will  not  sustain  Transubstantiation,  in  vain 
do  you  go  to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  or  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers.  But  we  will  meet  you 
at  all  points. 

II.  We  come  then  next  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers.  On  this  subject  we  remark:  1.  That 
their  unanimous  consent  is  necessary  to  prove  an 
article  of  faith  in  your  Church.  It  is  a  part  of 
your  rule  of  faith,  (See  Creed  of  Pius  IV.) 
"  never  to  take,  or  interpret  the  sacred  Scriptures 
otherwise  thai!  according  to  the  unanimous  consent 
of  the  lathers."  Of  course,  if  the  Fathers  are 
divided  on  this  subject,  they  avail  you  nothing. 
2.  It  will  abundantly  appear  in  what  follows,  to  say 
the  least,  that  the  body  of  their  testimony  is  entire- 
ly against  Transubstantiation.  3.  If  this  be  true, 
then  it  cannot,  on  your  own  principles,  be  an  arti- 
cle of  faith  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  4.  If  you 
deny  this,  then  all  the  Fathers  who  agree  with 
Protestants  were  Heretics.  But  of  the  many  cited 
below,  who  denied  the  real  presence,  none  was  on 
that  account  excommunicated  as  a  Heretic.  Then 
it  follows  that  all  such  were  Protestants  in  their 
principles,  and  that  our  doctrine  was  not  only 
tolerated,  but  professed  and  held  at  large  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church.  5.  Such  liberties  have 
been  taken  by  your  Church  with  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers,  and  the  pruning  knife  and  various 
forgeries  have  been  so  frequently  resorted  to,  that 
every  testimony  in  our  favour  is  to  be  esteemed 
incontrovertible  indeed.  6.  The  Fathers  often 
used  strongly  figurative  language,  in  speaking  of 
the  Eucharist;  and  the  writings  of  some  late  in 
the  history  of  the  Church,  savour  of  the  real  pre- 
sence;  but  mingled  with  much  contradiction  and 
absurdity.  With  these  remarks  we  proceed  to 
examine  their  authority  on  this  subject,  by  way 
of  contrast  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  1.  The  Fathers  differ  from  the  Church 
of  Rome  in  determining  what  that  thing  is  which 
Christ  calls  "  my  body."  We  have  seen  above, 
that  the  gloss  on  Gratian  and  Bellarmine,  (and 
we  might  add  Salmeron,  Kellison,  and  Vasquez,) 
explicitly  state  that  the  word  "  this"  cannot  refer 
to  the  substance  of  the  bread,  for  they  say,  bread 
cannot  be  the  body  of  Christ.  Now  the  Fathers 
expressly  tell  us  that  bread  is  Christ's  body. 
Hence  it  must  be  in  a  figure  as  Protestants  be- 
lieve. Iraeneus  in  the  second  century  (Adv. 
Haeres.  L.  5.  c.  2.)  says,  "Our  Lord  confessed 
the  cup  which  is  of  the  creature  to  be  his  blood, 
and  the  bread  which  is  of  the  creature  he  con- 
firmed it  to  be  his  body."  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, second  century,  writes,  (Psdag.  Lib.  2.  c.  2.) 


345 


"  Our  Lord  blessed  the  wine  saying,  take  drink, 
this  is  my  blood,  the  blood  of  the  grape;  for  the 
holy  river  of  gladness  (that  is,  the  wine)  does  al- 
legorically  signify  the  word  (/.  e.  the  blood  of  the 
word)  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
Tertullian,  (Lib.  4.  Advers.  Mareion,  c.  40.)  thus 
writes,  "  the  bread  that  he  took  and  distributed 
to  his  disciples,  he  made  it  his  body,  saying, 
« this  is  my  body,'  that  is,  the  figure  of  my  body." 
So  likewise  Cyprian,  Eusebius,  Origen,  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  &c. 
and  the  seventh  General  Council  at  Constanti- 
nople, confirm  the  above  testimonies.  Here  then 
we  have  a  decisive. proof  that  the  ancient  Fathers 
considered  Christ  as  speaking  in  a  figure,  when 
he  said  "  this  is  my  body,"  and  of  course  they 
rejected  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation. 

2.  The  Fathers,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation,  make  the  bread  and  wine  to 
be  the  Sucrament,  sign,  type,  and  image  of 
Christ's  blood  and  body.  Origin,  (Com.  in  Math. 
15)  speaking  of  the  Eucharist,  says,  "thus  mueh 
may  suffice  concerning  the  typical  and  symbolical 
body."  Isodore,  speaking  of  the  bread  and  wine, 
(De.  Off.  Ecc.  1.  1  C-  18)  says  "these  two  are 
visible,  but  being  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
they  pass  into  a  sacrament  of  his  divine  body." 
Augustine  calls  the  Eucharist  (In  Psal.  3.)  "a 
banquet  in  which  he  commended  and  delivered 
to  his  disciples  the  figure  of  his  body  and  blood." 
The  words  of  the  office  of  Ambrose  (Lib.  4.  de 
Sac.  c.  5)  are  very  striking.  "  Wouldst  thou 
know  that  the  Eucharist  is  consecrated  by  heaven- 
ly words'?  Hear  then  what  the  words  are.  The 
Priest  says,  make  this  oblation  to  us  allowable, 
rational,  acceptible,  which  is  the  figure  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  In  the  pre- 
sent canon  of  the  Mass  (a  confession  that  Tran- 
substantiation is  new)  the  words,  figure  of  the 
body,  are  altered  to  read,  may  it  be  made  to  tis  the 
body,  fiat  nobis  corpus.  Eusebius  (Lib.  8  Demon. 
Evang.)  thus  writes,  "Christ  delivered  to  his 
disciples  the  symbols  of  his  divine  economy,  re- 
quiring them  to  make  an  image  of  his  body." 
Ambrose  says,  "  none  can  ever  have  been  an  image 
of  himself,-"  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  says,  "  a  type 
is  not  the  truth,  but  rather  imports  the  similitude 
of  the  truth;"  and  Gregory  Nyssen,  "  an  image 
would  be  no  longer  such,  if  it  were  altogether  the 
same  with  that  of  which  it  is  an  image."  And 
yet  the  Church  of  Rome  ventures  the  following 
anathema,  "  whosoever  shall  deny  that  in  the 
most  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  there  are 
truly,  really,  and  substantially  contained  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  together  with 
his  soul  and  divinity,  and  consequently,  Christ 
entire;  but  shall  affirm  that  he  is  present  therein 
only  in  a  sign  or  figure,  or  by  his  power  .•  let  him 
be  accursed."  3.  The  Fathers  directly  contradict 
the  church  of  Rome  in  this,  that  they  say  Christ's 
body  is  eaten  spiritually,  whereas  the  church  of 
Rome  says  that  Christ's  body  is  eaten,  literally 
and  carnally.  Berringer,  A.  D.  1059,  recanted 
the  Protestant  doctrine  before  the  General  Council 
of  Lateran,  under  this  prescribed  form,  "  that  the 
true  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  in 


the  sign  and  sacrament,  but  in  truth,  is  handled 
and  broken  by  the  Priest's  hands,  and  ground  by 
the  teeth  of  the  faithful."  We  have  seen  above 
how  St.  Augustine  declares  that  it  is  a  "crime," 
and  "horrid  thing"  to  speak  of  "eating  Christ's 
real  flesh ;"  and  therefore  he  explains  it  spiritu- 
ally. Origin  says  (Horn.  7.  in  Levit.)  "  not 
only  in.  the  Old  Testament  is  found  the  killing 
letter ,-  there  is  also  in  the  New  Testament  a  let- 
ter that  kills  him  who  does  not  spiritually  consi- 
der what  is  said.  For  if  thou  follow  this  accord- 
ing to  the  letter  which  was  said,  '  unless  ye  eat 
my  flesh  and  drink  my  blood,'  this  letter  kills." 
Macarius  (Homil.  27.)  "  They  which  are  partak- 
ers of  the  visible  bread  do  spiritually  eat  the  flesh 
of  the  Lord."  Augustine  (In  Psl.  98.)  repre- 
sents our  Lord  as  "  saying  understand  spiritually 
what  I  have  spoken.  Ye  are  not.  to  eat  this  body 
which  ye  see,  nor  to  drink  that  blood  which  they 
shall  shed,  who  will  crucify  me.  I  have  com- 
mended a  certain  sacrament  to  you  which,  if  spiri- 
tually understood,  will  give  life  to  you  ;  and  since 
it  is  necessary  this  sacrament  should  be  visibly 
celebrated,  yet  it  must  be  invisibly  tmderstood  by 
you."  This  is  the  very  language  of  evangelical 
Protestants.  What  makes  this  position  still 
more  clear,  is  that  the  Fathers  make  Christ  as 
really  present  in  baptism,  as  in  the  eucharist. 
Thus  Chrysostom,  (Cat.  ad.  Ilium.)  speaking  to 
those'  who  were  to  receive  baptism  says,  "  you 
shall  be  clothed  with  the  p  lrple  garment  dyed  in 
the  Lord's  blood."  Fulgentius  (De.  Bapt.  Ae- 
thiop.  Cap.  Ult.)  writes,  "neither  need  any  one  at 
all  doubt  that  then,  every  believer  is  made  parta- 
ker of  our  Lord's  body  mid  blood,  when  he  is 
made  a  member  of  Christ  in  baptism." 

4.  The  Fathers  deny  the  substantial  presence  of 
Christ's  natural  body  in  the  eucharist,  and  thus 
differ  wholly  from  the  Chu-ch  of  Rome.  This 
may  be  proved  from  the  writings  of  Ambrose, 
Augustine,  Cyril,  Chrysostoia,  Gregory,  Nazi- 
anzen,  &c. 

5.  The  Fathers  positively  assert  that  the  substance 
of  the  bread  and  wine  remains  after  consecration, 
which  is  directly  the  reverse  of  Transubstantia- 
tion. In  Theodoret's  Dialogues  2.  it  is  written, 
"  after  sanctification  the  mystical  symbols  do  not 
depart  from  their  own  nature,  for  they  remain  still 
in  their  former  substance  and  figure  and  form,  and 
may  be  seen  and  touched  just  as  before.  But  they 
are  understood  to  be  that  which  they  are  made, 
and  are  believed  and  venerated  as  beino-  what 
they  are  believed  to  be."  (Dial.  1.)  "  He  (Christ) 
honoured  the  visible  symbols  with  the  appellation 
of  his  body  and  blood,  not  altering  nature,  but  to 
nature  adding  grace."  The  same  may  be  proved 
from  Peter  Martyr,  Chrysostom,  Pope  Gelasius, 
Facundus,  Origin,  Cyprian,  lrenseus,  Ambrose, 
Augustine,  &c. 

The  multiplication  of  particulars  and  of  proofs 
would  be  endless.  But  from  the  Fathers  it  may 
abundantly  be  gathered,  that  Transubstantiation 
was  not  the  doctrine  of  the  early  church.  They 
contradict  the  church  of  Rome  about  the  nature 
and  properties  of  bodies  ;  they  deny  that  "  acci- 
dents" or  properties  can  exist  without  a  subject, 


346 


that  is,  the  appearance  of  bread,  without  its  sub- 
stance ,-  they  deny  that  our  senses  can  deceive  us 
in  the  Eucharist;  they  deny  that  any  but  the 
faithful  can  eat  "  Christ's  body ;"  the  absurd  use 
of  the  word  species  in  your-church  was  unknown 
to  them ;  they  professed  no  miracle  in  the  Eucha- 
rist such  as  you  do,  but  make  it  a  spiritual  mys- 
tery ;  they  gave  the  cup  to  the  people,  as  .well  as 
the  bread  ;  they  never  elevated  the  Eucharist  that 
it  might  be  adored  ;  they  took  no  care  to  reserve 
what  remained  of  the  consecrated  elements  after 
administration,  and  they  allowed  the  people  to 
make  what  use  they  pleased  of  them  ;  and  they 
even  used  to  send  the  elements  from  one  Bishop 
to  another  as  a  token  of  peace  ;  strange  use,  im- 
pious custom  if  indeed  it  was  the  real  body  of 
Christ!  In  all  these  things  they  differed  wholly 
from  the  church  of  Rome;  and  by  these  differen- 
ces showed  that  they  believed  not  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation.  I  hope  hereafter,  to  have  the 
opportunity  of  presenting  the  argument  from  the 
Fathers  to  the  community  at  full  length,  either  in 
a  public  discussion  with  you,  or  if  you  decline 
this,  in  a  form  which  will  give  room  for  ample 
citation  of  authorities.  In  the  mean  time  let  me 
say,  in  reference  to  the  work  of  Thomas  Moore 
(from  which  you  seem  chiefly  to  draw  your  tes- 
timonies) that  there  is  not  a  more  garbled,  dishon- 
est and  superficial  view  of  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers,  in  any  language. 

III.  The  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  is  not 
only  against  the  Scripture  and  the  Fathers,  but 
it  is  contrary  to  reason ,  and  contradicts  all  our  senses. 
Bellarmine  himself  acknowledges,  (Book  2.  chap. 
12.  De  Eucharist)  "  we  might  be  accounted  fools 
truly,  if  without  the  word  of  God,  we  believed  the 
true  flesh  of  Christ  to  be  eaten  with  the  mouths  of 
our  bodies."  But  w«  have  shown  conclusively 
that  it  is  believed  without  the  authority  of  God's 
word.  Hence  on  bis  principles  it  is  an  absur- 
dity. When  you  attempt  to  put  this  doctrine  by 
the  side  of  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation  of  Christ 
&c.  you  compare  the  most  opposite  and  dissimi- 
lar things.  There  is  not  a  mystery,  or  a  doctrine 
of  Christianity  that  is  contrary  to  reason.  In 
saying  therefore,  "  when  you  study  mathematics 
you  reason,  but  in  revelation  you  believe,''''  you  can 
mean  I  suppose  nothing  more  than  Bellarmine 
does  (Lib.  1.  cap.  7.  De  Just.)  "  that  faith  is  bet- 
ter defined  by  ignorance  than  knowledge.''''  In 
revelation,  as  in  Mathematics,  we  reason  upon 
facts,  communicated  in  the  one  case  through  God's 
word,  in  the  other  through  his  works.  When  his 
word  reveals  facts  which  connect  themselves  with 
his  works,  they  do  not  contradict  each  other.  It 
is  not  a  contradiction  to  say  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  a  perfect  man  and  yet  God,  though  the  revela- 
tion is  above  our  reason.  But  it  is  a  contradiction 
to  say  that  a  piece  bread  can  become  a  perfect 
man,  "  bones,  sinews,  body  and  soul ;"  that  the 
man  Christ  Jesus,  who  is  in  Heaven,  should  at 
the  same  time  be  bodily  in  the  bread,  nay,  in  ten 
thousand  pieces  of  bread,  in  ten  thousand  places 
at  the  same  time ;  that  the  bread  should  be  turned 
into  the  substance  of  Christ,  and  yet  nothing  of  the 
bread  become  any  of  Christ,  either  as  to  matter, 


form  or  properties ;  that  the  bread  should  yet  be 
so  changed  into  Christ's  substance  as  to  cease  to 
be  bread,  and  still  retain  the  appearances  of  bread, 
so  that  there  should  be  a  long,  broad,  thick,  white, 
heavy,  moist,  active,  passive  nothing t  that  there 
should  be  length  and  nothing  long,  breadth  and 
nothing  broad,  thickness  and  nothing  thick, 
whiteness  and  nothing  white,  weight  and  nothing 
heavy,  &c.  &c;  that  this  strange  something 
nothing,  seeming  bread  and  not  bread,  the  body 
of  Christ  yet  seeming  bread,  should  be  eaten  and 
pass  into  our  blood,  and  should  be  a  body,  and 
yet  not  diminished,  and  be  living  in  heaven  entire 
and  unbroken,  while  all  this  is  going  on  upon 
earth,  is  I  say  an  infinite  absurdity.  Yet  this  is 
a  part  of  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation. 
Again,  the  proof  of  miracles  rests  on  the  testimony 
of  the  senses.  Hence  when  Christ  rose  from  the 
dead,  he  said  to  unbelieving  Thomas  "  handle  me 
and  see,  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye 
see  me  have."  All  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  ap- 
peal to  the  senses  of  men ;  that  is  not  a  miracle 
which  the  senses  cannot  discern ,-  and  that  is  not 
a  true  miracle  which  contradicts  the  senses. 
Hume's  argument  in  favour  of  infidelity  proceeds 
upon  the  denial  of  the  testimony  of  the  senses ; 
and  if  Transubstantiation  be  true  he  cannot  be 
confuted.  Now  the  senses  say  that  the  bread  is 
still  bread,  and  the  wine,  still  wine,  after  all  your 
consecration ;  therefore,  there  is  no  miracle,  or  the 
senses  would  discern  it ;  it  is  not  the  flesh  of  Christ 
for  the  senses  all  say  it  is  bread.  When  there- 
fore you  say  I  have  "  forgotten  my  philosophy," 
you  discover  that  the  philosophy  of  the  Bible, 
and  of  Newton  and  of  Bacon,  and  of  common  sense, 
all  are  with  me.  Your  church  seemed  to  feel  this 
difficulty  in  its  canons  and  its  cathechism.  Thus 
the  Catechism  says,  "however  repugnant  it  may 
appear  to  the  dictate  of  the  senses  no  substance  of  the 
elements  remains  in  the  sacraments.'*  In  fact,  in 
the  whole  account  of  the  Eucharist,  there  are  al- 
most as  many  absurdities  as  words.  When  you 
refer  to  the  Holy  Ghost  appearing  at  the  bap- 
tism of  Christ  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  you  not  only 
forget  your  philosophy  but  pervert  your  Bible. 
The  Holy  Ghost  never  had  a  human  body  .•  He 
appeared  in  the  form  of  a  dove ;  and  we  do  not 
deny  that  God  may  manifest  himself  in  a  vi- 
sible form.  But  the  cases  are  not  parallel.  If 
it  had  been  said,  that  what  appeared  to  be  a  dove, 
was  a  man,  and  yet  had  all  the  external  appear- 
ances of  a  dove,  and  that  this  same  man,  which 
appeared  a  dove  to  John  at  Jordan,  was  at  the 
same  time  in  Heaven  on  the  Throne  a  real  man, 
then  you  might  have  claimed  it  for  an  illustra- 
tion. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  ancient  hea- 
then, Jews,  and  infidels,  such  as  Celsus,  and 
Porphyry,  Lucian,  Julian  and  Trypho,  who  used 
all  their  wit  and  cunning  to  oppose  the  doctrine 
and  worship  of  Christians,  and  who  attacked  by 
name  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  Sonship  of 
Christ,  his  Incarnation,  Crucifixion,  and  our  Re- 
surrection, as  absurdities,  never  once  noticed  the 
doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  which  surely  is  the 
mystery  of  mysteries.    From  this  it  is  evident 


247 


that  the  doctrine  was  not  then  known.  This  is 
the  more  clear  from  the  fact  that  Julian  was  once 
initiated  into  the  Christian  Church,  and  there- 
fore, knew  all  their  doctrines  and  mysteries  ;  yet 
he  attacked  all  the  rest  and  never  named  this. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  just  about  the  time  at 
which  Transubstantiation  was  adopted,  A.  D. 
1215,  Jews  and  Mahommedans,  and  others,  with 
great  fullness  and  frequency,  attacked  this  doc- 
trine. Averroes,  a  Mahommedan,  whom  we 
quoted  in  a  former  letter,  saying,  "  that  Chris- 
tians first  made  their  God,  then  ate  him,"  lived  in 
the  same  age  with  Innocent  III.  and  the  Lateran 
Council,  which  introduced  this  doctrine,  sat  under 
Innocent.  Now  we  object  not  to  the  doctrine 
because  Mahommedans,  Jews,  &c.  opposed  it, 
but  because  they  never  opposed  it  before,  though 
they  opposed  whatever  they  thought  absurd  be- 
fore that  age  ;  and  have  opposed  this  doctrine 
ever  since  that  age  ;  therefore,  we  infer  that  in 
that  age  it  was  adopted.  There  is  also  this  sin- 
gular fact,  that  the  faking  away  of  the  cup  from 
the  people  immediately  followed  the  adoption  of 
Transubtantiation.  As  the  wine  (by  this  doctrine)  is 
Christ's  real  blood,  so  the  use  of  the  cup  exposed  it 
to  be  spilt,-  and  besides  as  the  blood  is  said  to  be  in 
the  body,  so  the  cup  became  useless.  He  that 
runs  may  read  and  understand  this. 

IV.  We  notice  briefly  the  origin  of  this  doc- 
-trine.  The  last  remark  goes  far  to  prove  its  re- 
cent date.  Scotus,  a  Roman  Catholic  writer,  (as 
Bellarmine  owns)  states  "  that  it  was  not  an  arti- 
cle of  faith  before  the  Lateran  Council,  A.  D. 
1215."  It  is  false  when  you  charge  me  with 
saying  that  this  doctrine  was  not  held  before 
1215  ;  but  I  still  assert  that  it  was  never  an  article 
of  faith  before.  In  proof  this  I  refer  not  only  to 
Scotus,  but  to  Tonstal,  to  Durand,  Erasmus,  and 
Alfonsus  a  Castro.  Erasmus  says,  (De  Hseres, 
B.  8.)  "  that  it  was  late  before  the  church  defined 
Transubstantiation,  which  was  unknown  to  the 
ancients,  both  name  and  thing."  And  now  I  chal- 
lenge you  to  produce  any  proof  that  it  was  enacted 
an  article  of  faith  before  1215.  It  was  agitated 
for  some  time  before  ;  it  was  matter  of  discussion 
in  the  church  till  the  year  1059,  when  Berringer 
recanted  the  truth  on  this  subject;  in  1079  his  re- 
cantation was  amended ,-  and  finally,  after  a  world 
of  strife,  through  several  ages,  the  doctrine  was 
promoted  into  an  article  of  faith  in  1215. 

V.  Your  objections  are  so  trivial  and  puerile, 
that  they  scarcely  deserve  notice.  You  say,  "  if 
the  body  of  Christ  was  not  in  the  Sacrament  how 
could  men  discern  it  there  V  I  answer,  can  you 
discern  the  body  after  Transubstantiation  1  Is 
not  the  very  word  "  spec/fs"  used  in  your  Church 
to  cover  the  absurdity  of  saying  Christ's  flesh  is 
there,  though  we  discern  only  bread?  Truly,  if  the 
evidence  of  Christianity  had  rested  on  such  mira- 
cles as  no  man  can  see,  we  should  all  have  been 
without  a  religion  !  We  discern  Christ  spiritually 
you  worship  the  bread  and  superinduce  idolatry 
upon  the  Eucharist. 

You  say  :  "  to  creatures  deputed  by  God  some 
power  was  given,  but  to  Christ  all  power,  both  in 
heaven  and  in  earth,  and  it  was  in  the  Eucharist 


alone  that  this  all  power  was  exercised."  Strange 
indeed!  Christ  "exercised  this  all  power"  in 
the  only  way  in  which,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  no  body  could  see,  feel,  or  know  that  it 
was  exercised  !  Other  miracles,  you  say,  crea- 
tures could  work  by  delegation  ;  other  miracles, 
as  raising  the  dead,  passing  the  Red  Sea,  &c. 
&c,  spoke  for  themselves,  and  were  seen  as  soon 
as  done.  But  this  miracle,  which  "all"  Christ's 
power  and  his  "alone''''  could  operate,  is  dumb 
and  invisible;  none  ever  discerned  it,  or  ever 
can  ;  and  in  order  to  know  it,  you  must  tell  us  it 
has  been  done,  and  we  must  disbelieve  our  senses 
in  order  to  believe  you.  Besides,  are  not  all 
miracles,  by  the  power,  and  to  the  glory  of 
Christ]  And  does  not  this  pretended  miracle 
degrade  his  humanity,  and  Deify  the  operating 
Priest?  And  does  it  not  destroy  all  miracles  to 
believe  this  miracle  ]  If  this  be  true  all  others 
may  be  false,  for  this  falsifies  all  those  senses  on 
which  the  truth  of  other  miracles  rests.  You 
say  Christ  and  his  Apostles  did  not  warn  Chris- 
tians of  the  error  of  Transubstantiation,  though  they 
spoke  of  other  errors  that  were  to  arise ;  and  you 
more  than  intimate  that  Christ  wras  " guilty  of  du- 
plicity,'1'' if  Transubstantiation  be  false.  Such  pro- 
fanity needs  no  comment.  But  I  ask,  did  Christ 
and  his  Apostles  warn  Christians  of  the  Protes- 
tant error  of  denying  the  real  presence  1  Did  he 
not  warn  them  of  "  seducing  spirits  ;"  of  "  their 
lying  wonders;"  of  their  "  changing  the  truth  of 
God  into  a  lie ;"  "  exalting  themselves  above 
God;"  "  forbidding  to  marry,"  &c.  &c?  These 
prophetic  warnings  are  so  direct  and  clear,  that 
they  are  written  in  as  sun-beams  on  the  Vatican 
at  Rome. 

VI.  As  the  real  presence  of  Christ  depends  upon 
the  intention  of  the  Priest  who  consecrates  ;  (See 
the  Canon  already  quoted)  and  as  Bellarmine 
owns,  (Book  3.  Chap.  8  Justn.)  "  no  man  can  be 
certain,  withthe  certainty  of  faith  that  he  receives 
a  true  Sacrament;  because  it  depends  on  the 
minister's  intention  to  consecrate  it ;  and  none 
can  see  another's  intention  ;"  it  follows  irresisti- 
bly that  to  worship  the  consecrated  wafer  ex- 
poses every  member  of  your  Church  to  continual 
and  gross  idolatry.  For  how  can  you  be  certain  7 
And  if  you  are  not  certain,  how  dare  you  worship 
it  1  For  if  it  be  not  truly  consecrated,  you  en- 
courage, and  you  practice  gross  idolatry. 

VII.  It  would  be  quite  amusing,  if  it  did  not 
call  up.  along  with  that  feeling,  others  more  seri- 
ous, to  find  you  claiming  the  ancient  Liturgies,  as 
teaching  Transubstantiation.  I  here  venture  to 
assert  that  there  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  all 
you  have  said  on  that  subject;  and  I  am  prepared 
to  prove  what  I  say  whenever  you  please.  So 
far  is  what  you  say  from  being  true,  that  the 
Mass,  decretals,  and  glosses  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  do  much  to  overthrow  Transubstantiation, 
as  I  will  show  in  my  next  letter,  if  you  deny  it; 
and  so  confessed  is  this,  that  the  Mass  has  been 
altered  so  as  to  change  the  ancient  Liturgy,  (which 
was  against  Transubstantiation)  to  make  it  speak 
for  it.  There  is  another  fact  on  this  subject,  which 
speaks  volumes  in  behalf  of  the  Protestant  doc- 


348 


trine.  It  is  that  the  ancient  Syrian  Christians, 
called  St.  Thomas's  Christians,  because  evange- 
lized by  the  Apostle  Thomas,  and  who  have  come 
down  with  the  Bible  in  their  hands  from  the  days 
of  the  Apostles,  reject  Transubstantiation,  as  well 
as  "  the  Apochryphal  books  "  which  your  church 
has  foisted  into  the  canon.  For  these,  and  other 
Protestant  doctrines,  their  Breviary,  Book  of  Ho- 
milies, &c.  were  condemned  by  a  Roman  Catho- 
lic Synod  held  in  Goa,  India,  A.  D.  1599.  But 
more  of  this  hereafter-  May  I  not  then  retort  the 
question,  "  what  have  you  now  to  say  for  your- 
self?" 

Thus  we  see  that  on  every  point  Transubstan- 
tiation  is  a  false,  shocking',  novel  doctrine.  With 
Transubstantiation  falls  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 
Upon  Transubstantiation,  every  thing  impor- 
tant and  decisive  in  the  church  of  Rome  may 
be  said  in  a  degree  to  hang.  It  is  on  account  of 
its  importance,  and  dreadful  evils  that  I  have  en- 
tered so  largely  into  the  discussion  of  it.  Hav- 
ing not  room  to  take  up  your  remarks  in  the  last 
letter  on  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  and  communion 
in  one  kind,  I  for  the  present  refer  our  readers  to 
my  exposure  of  them  in  letters  No.  22  and  24. 

And  now  the  doctrine  of  truth  which  remains 
on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist,  is  the  simple  and 
sublime  institution  founded  by  Jesus  Christ, 
practised  by  the  earliest  Christians,  taught  by  the 
Fathers  for  the  first  six  hundred  years,  and 
now  held  and  practised  by  the  great  body  of  Pro- 
testants in  Europe  and  America,  which  makes 
the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  to  be  symbols 
and  figures  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ;  which 
gives  the  bread  and  the  wine  to  all  who  commune; 
which  makes  saving  faith  the  qualification  to  par- 
take profitably,  and  to  discern  the  spiritual  pre- 
sence of  Christ  in  his  sacrament ;  and  which  is 
the  only  rational  and  consistent  construction  that 
can  be  put  upon  the  words  of  institution.  Lu- 
ther's doctrine  called  "consubstantiation,"  retains 
a  remnant  of  his  Papal  errors,  as  his  great  mind 
was  in  transition  from  the  absurdities  of  the  real 
presence  towards  the  simple  and  beautiful  insti- 
tution of  Jesus  Christ.  But  whatever  his  doc- 
trine was,  it  is  radically  different  from  yours, 
whose  enormous  evils  his  eyes  were  opened  to 
behold. 

You  lug  in  "the  review"  of  your  review  of 
"  Bishop  Onderdonk's  charge  on  the  Rule  of 
Faith,"  as  if  you  had  nothing  to  do  beside.  When 
I  called  you  out  on  tradition  you  declined  to  ap- 
pear. Now  you  would  divert  me  from  unveiling 
to  an  astonished  nation,  the  true  history  and  real 
doctrines  of  the  Papacy.  But  no,  no!  Our  res- 
pected Episcopal  brethren  do  not  need  my  humble 


help.  I  suppose  you  never  read  Tillotson  nor 
Barrow,  nor  Usher  ("  whose  authority"  I  know 
your  church  has  never  loved,  nor  met)  nor  Stilling- 
fleet  nor  Sherlock,  nor  Patrick,  nor  Wake,  whom 
Bossuet  could  not  forget.  Go  read  them  and  be 
humble  ! 

The  personal  vanity  displayed  in  your  notice 
of  this  review,  makes  me  ashamed  of  you.  And 
then  to  repeat  the  wretched  tale  of  "  a  bookseller 
(as  you  have  been  told)  having  been  forbidden 
to  keep  it  for  sale !"  Have  you  forgotten  the 
Index  Expurgatorius  at  Rome,  for  pruning  books, 
and  prohibiting  their  perusal  and  sale,  yes,  even 
of  the  Bible  ?  May  I  ask  who  this  bookseller 
is  ?  May  I  call  for  the  name  of  your  inform- 
ant? Surely  I  have  more  right  to  do  so,  than 
you  had  to  demand  the  Rev.  Mr.  Burtt's?  Who 
then  are  these  whose  scandals  you  retail  and  pub- 
lish against  the  Episcopal  community"? 

In  my  next  letter,  if  my  life  is  continued,  I  will 
classify  and  extend  my  answers  to  your  stereotype 
stale  questions.  They  have  already  been  replied 
to.  But  you  shall  not  complain  of  my  silence.  In 
the  mean  time  I  ask  an  answer  to  the  following- 
enquiries,  viz:  % 

1.  Did  Pope  Liberius  subscribe  the  Arian  creed, 
yes  or  no  ? 

2.  Did  the  councils  of  Sermium  and  Ariminum 
adopt  Arian  creeds  ? 

3.  Does  the  validity  of  ordinations,  administra- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  &c.  depend  on  the  inten- 
tion of  Popes,  Bishops,  and  Priests  ? 

4.  Was  there  ever  a  time  when  there  was  a 
schism  in  the  Popedom,  when  several  persons 
claimed  to  be  popes  at  once,  and  it  was  not  cer- 
tainly known  who  was  the  true  pope ;  and  were 
there  ever  any  false  popes  ? 

5.  Do  you  approve  the  decrees  of  councils,  rules 
of  the  Index,  and  bulls  of  popes  against  the  free- 
dom of  the  press?  Is  there  not  now  a  committee 
at  Rome  who  may,  and  do,  prohibit  to  all  the 
church  the  printing,  sale,  and  reading  of  any  books 
they  please  ?  If  so,  do  you  approve  of  this  ? 

6.  Why  is  money  paid  for  indulgences,  masses 
for  the  dead,  and  in  aid  of  souls  in  Purgatory  ? 

7.  Was  it  right  to  abolish  the  order  of  the 
Jesuits  ?  Was  it  right  to  restore  it  ?  The  same 
two  questions  also  touching  the  Inquisition  ? 

8.  If  the  Jewish  church  was  infallible  why  do 
you  reject  all  her  traditions  ?  These  questions 
bear  directly  on  the  controversy.  An  explicit  an- 
swer to  them  will  gratify  the  community,  many 
of  whom  are  surprised  that  you  evade  so  many 
subjects  brought  before  you;  and  it  will  also  much 
oblige  your  obedient  servant, 

John  Breckinridge. 


CONTROVERSY.. ...N°.   31. 


Is  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  September  2d}  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — "Mr.  Breckinridge  says  that  "the  Proles 
tant  is  the  religion  of  Christ" 

If  so,  I  call  upon  him  1st.  To  tell  me  what  the  Protes 
tant  religion  is  ? 

2.  I  call  upon  him  to  say  what  society  of  Chris 
Hans  ever  taught  this   pretended  "  religion   of 
Christ"  previous  to  the  Reformation  ? 

3.  J  call  upon  him  to  say,  whether  Christ  revealed 
all  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  religion,  be- 
ginning with  the  best  image  of  his  church,  Epis- 
copalianism,  and  terminating  with  the  most  con- 
sistent  of  Protestant  sects,  the  Unitarians  ? — 
and  if  not,  how  many  denominations  out  of  the 
whole  belong  to  the  true  Protestant  religion, 
the  religion  of  Christ  ? 

4.  I  call  upon  /lint  to  s7ww  whethtr  the  Reformers 
received  any  new  ministerial  authority,  afttr 
the  withdrawal  of  that  which  they  had  received 
from  the  church  ? 

5.  J  call  upon  him,  in  case  no  such  new  authority 
was  received,  to  show  that  the  Protestant  clergy, 
so  called,  have  any  divine  right  to  exercise  the 
Christian  ministry,  more  than  other  educated 
laymen  /" 

In  my  last  Letter  I  promised  to  "  expose  you," 
in  case  you  would  mention  "  the  page"  of  any 
Catholic  historian  who  states  what  you  had  as- 
serted, respecting  the  immorality  of  the  Popes 
and  Clergy  of  Rome."  You  have  complied  with 
your  part  of  the  condition,  and  now,  it  is  for  me 
to  fulfil  mine.  You  give  two  extracts ;  and  refer 
me  to  the  pages  where  they  are  to  be  found. 
The  one  is  from  "  Thuanus,  Book  37.  p.  776." 
The  history  of  Thuanus  has  been  condemned  at 
Rome  by  two  public  decrees  ;  the  one  of  Novem- 
ber 9,  1609  ;  the  other  of  May  10,  1757;  from 
which  fact,  the  reader  may  see  with  how  little 
propriety  he  deserves  to  be  called  a  "  Roman  Ca- 
tholic historian."  He  was,  says  a  modern  au- 
thor, Paquot,  "  an  audacious  writer  ;  the  implac- 
able enemy  of  the  Jesuits  ;  the  calumniator  of 
the  Guises  ;  the  copyist,  flatterer,  friend  of  the 
Protestants  ;  and  was  far  from  beingeven  just  f pa- 
rum  cequus  J  to  the  Holy  See,  the  Council  of  Trent, 
or  any  thing  Catholic."  But  hostile  as  he  was, 
I  am  not  certain  that  the  extract  given  in  your 
letter  is  contained  in  his  work  ;  which  is  not  in 
my  possession.  If  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  city, 
I  shall  examine  it.  Among  Catholics,  however, 
he  is  any  thing  but  an  accredited  historian. 

'  You  mention  as  another  Catholic  Ivstorian,  Du- 
pin.  We  disown  him;  and  for  the  following 
reason.  His  secret  papers  were  examined  on  the 
10th  of  February,  1719,  at  the  Palais  Royal,  and 


it  was  found,  as  Lafitau  testifies,  that  in  his  cor- 
respondence with  Archbishop  Wake,  of  Canter- 
bury, on  the  subject  of  a  re-union  between 
the  English  and  Catholic  churches,  he  was 
ready  to  give  up  the  following  points.  1.  Auri- 
acular  Confession.  2.  Transubstantiation.  3. 
Religious  Vows.  4.  The  fast  of  Lent  and  absti- 
nence. 5.  The  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  6.  The 
Celibacy  of  the  Clergy;  having  probably  antici- 
pated you  in  discovering  that  a  Bishop  "must 
be"  the  husband  of  one  wife.  But  it  is  clear,  that 
a  man  who  could  so  far  betray  the  Catholic  Reli- 
gion, is  not  entitled  to  the  credit  ox  appellation  of 
a  Catholic  historian.  From  him,  however,  you 
give  no  extract. 

But  Baronius  is  a  Catholic  historian.     You  re- 
fer to  "  the  page"  of  his  Annals  for  A.  D.   908. 
From  this  you  give  an  extract :   I  have  consulted 
the  text,  and   find  :   1st.  That  you  suppress  that 
part  of  the  passage,  which,  so  far  from  criminat- 
ing the  legitimate  Popes,  absolutely   vindicates 
them  from  your  charge.     2d.  That  you  absolute- 
ly falsify  Baronius,  (if  indeed  you  ever  saw  the 
original,)  by  making  him  say  the  very  contrary 
of  what  he  has  said.     To  put  the  matter  to  rest, 
I  shall  mark  the  pages,  and  leave  two  copies  of 
Baronius,  one  in  Latin,  and  the  other  in  Italian, 
at   the    Athenacium    on   Thursday   morning,    to- 
gether   with    a    copy   of    your    letter,    for    the 
curious   to    compare    the    one   with    the    other. 
The   public   will    then   see   which    of   us    is    to 
to  be  "exposed."     If  the  American  people  pride 
themselves   on  their  love  of  truth,  these  little 
matters  will  open  their  eyes  to  the  impositions 
that  have  been  practiced   upon  them    and   their 
fathers.     They  will   see  to  what  an  extent  their 
credulity  has  been  abused,  on   the  subject  of  the 
Catholic    Religion.     They  will    see,    moreover, 
that  you  evade  the  only  question  for  which  you 
had  pledged  yourself:  viz.  whether    "the   Pro- 
testant Religion  be  the  Religion  of  Christ  V     I 
furnished  ample  arguments  founded  on  the  autho- 
rity  of   the  Reformers  themselves   to   prove  the 
contrary.    This  was  in  Letter,  No.  XXIII.    Will 
they  ever  be  answered  ]     Is    not  the  author   of 
your  last,    able   to   refute   them  ?     If    not ;    but 
hold  :    here  is  something  like  a  renewal  of  the 
promise. 

"In  my  next  letter,  if  my  life  be  continued,  I 
will  classify  and  extend  my  answers  to  your  past, 
stale  questions."  Here  then  is  a  promise  at  last, 
and  I  hope  the  "  stale"  questions  will  be  satisfac- 
torily disposed  of.  If  you  had  answered  them 
sooner,  they  would  not  be  "stale." 

In  the  first  column  of  your  last  Letter  you  re- 
turn to  your  "Magdalen  Report,"  but  with  less  of 


350 


indecent  language  than  had  been  employed  on  a 
former  occasion.  You  do  me  great  wrong,  how- 
ever, when  you  insinuate  that  I  wished  to  insult 
you.  I  merely  stated,  with  a  view  to  the  im- 
provement of  your  style,  that  you  had  given  of- 
fence to  modesty  and  delicate  sentiment,  by  the 
elaborate  grossness  of  your  descriptions.  For 
this,  you  should  not  be  displeased  with  me.  I 
merely  held  up  the  mirror  of  public  taste,  and  in- 
stead of  attempting  to  "  break  the  looking-glass," 
you  should  have  endeavoured  to  correct  the  de- 
formities (if  any)  that  were  reflected  by  it,  until 
at  length,  you  might  look  upon  the  image  of  your 
pen  without  feeling  yourself  "  insulted.'" 

It  is  true,  that  our  own  writers  have  lamented, 
and  do  lament  the  existence  of  immoralities.     But 
this  is  common  to  all  denominations.     And  if  it 
be  an  argument  against  the  truth  of  a  religion,  the 
deist  may  quote  the  example  of  Judas,  and  use  it 
against  the  doctrines  of  Christ.     There  are,  and 
have  been,  immoral  men  of  every  religion,  and  yet 
I  know  of  no  religion  that  does  not  profess  to 
condemn  immorality.     But  the  man  who  practi- 
ces the  duties  of  the  Catholic  religion  is  found  to 
be  an  example  of  every  virtue  that  can  adorn  hu- 
manity.    How  then  can   that  religion  be  made 
accountable  for  transgressions  that  are  committed 
in  contempt  of  her  authority  and  in  violation  of 
her  precepts  ?     Is  Christianity  to  be  held  respon- 
sible for  the  crimes  of  men,  calling  themselves 
Christians  1      Certainly     not.       So    neither     is 
the   church   accountable  for  the  crimes  of  indi- 
viduals.    This  is  manifest  to  every  mind  endow- 
ed with  common  sense.     When,  therefore,  you 
speak   of   scandalous   men   in    the   church,   you 
speak  of  men  who  are  self-condemned   by   the 
very    doctrines   which   they   profess.     They   are 
Protestants  in  morals,  by  despising  and  trampling 
upon  the  moral   precepts  of  their  religion.     But 
pray  do  Presbyterians  stand  so   immaculate   in 
public   estimation,    that   you   are    warranted    in 
wielding  the  weapon  of  reproach  with  so  large  an 
assumption    of    sectarian    righteousness  ]      Are 
there  no  instances  of  depravity  among  your  peo- 
ple, your  pastors  and   ruling  elders  1     Are   not 
"  publicans  and   sinners*'  sometimes  found  under 
the  Pharasee's  mantle1?     Are  there  no  "  coiivic- 
ticrns^  among  you,  except  those  of  the  spirit  ?     If 
not,  you  have  a  right  to  "  cast  the  first  stone." 
I  merely  suggest  these  inquries  to  your  recollec- 
tion, leaving  it   to  some  pen  more  reckless  than 
mine  to   go  into  specific  crimination.     Materials 
are  not  wanting,  and  the  •public  are  aware  of  if. 

Now  certainly  it  is  not  the  celibacy  of  the  Pro- 
testant clergy  that  gives  occasion  to  these  scan- 
dals. Their  ministers  may  be,  or  as  you  have  dis- 
covered "  must  be"  the  husband  of  one  wife;  and 
even  this  does  not  always  protect  them  from  the 
tongue  and  the  type  of  scandal.     How  is  this  1 

Ao-ain  : — if  the  details  of  impudicity  be  a  fa- 
vourite theme,  why  did  you  pass  over  those  of 
"  Brother  M'DowelPa  Journal,"  and  other  Pro- 
testant documents  by  which  it  appears  that  in  the 
city  of  New  York  no  less  than  "  ten  thousand" 
females  have  forgotten  to  be  virtuous  ]  And  yet 
New  York  is  a  city,  in  which  Protestant  minis- 


ters are  superabundantly  numerous,  basking  in  the 
sunshine  of  popularity  and  emolument.  This  state 
of  morals  is  certainly  not  owing  to  the  celibacy  of 
the  clergy.  Is  it  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Protes- 
tantism of  New  York  1  The  analogy  of  your 
reasoning  would  lead  to  that  inference. 

As  to  the  charge  that  the  Catholic  Church  for- 
bids marriage,  it  is  untrue.  She  teaches  in  the 
very  language  of  St.  Paul,  that  marriage  is  hon- 
ourable in  afl.  She  holds,  however,  that  there  is 
a  holier  state,  which  is  free  for  those  who,  by  the 
divine  grace,  are  called  to  embrace  it.  The  law 
of  her  priesthood  enjoins  celibacy  and  chastity, 
but  no  one  is  compelled  to  enter  into  the  minis- 
try of  her  sanctuary.  If  they  wish  to  marry, 
they  do  weil.  She  does  not  choose  them  for  her 
clergy.  If  they  wish  not  to  marry,  they  do  better, 
freeing  themselves  from  solicitude  "  about  the 
things  of  this  world,  how  they  may  please  their 
wives."  But  in  neither  case  is  there  any  com- 
pulsion. At  some  future  time  I  may  enlarge 
upon  the  subject,  but  at  present  I  merely  state  the 
fact  to  show  that  you  either  did  not  know  or  did 
not  choose  to  represent  fairly,  the  doctrine  of  the 
church.  It  is  certain  that  the  marriage  of  Luther 
and  his  associates  was  a  shocking  scandal  even 
to  their  followers.     And  Dr.  Miller  goes  so  far 

as  to  recommend  celibacy  among1  the  Protes- 
tant clergy,  but  evidently  with  the  conviction  on 
his  mind,  that  his  advice  will  not  be  followed. 
He  thinks  for  example,  that  neither  Wesley  nor 
Whitefield  should  have  engaged  in  matrimony. 
But  the  fact  is  that  Protestant  clergymen  seem  to 
feel  it  as  an  inward  reproach,  that  they  can  furnish 
no  such  examples  of  self  denial,  as  those  which 
are  witnessed  in  the  Catholic  priesthood.  They 
feel,  that  in  the  trying  duties  of  the  ministry,  they 
dare  not  expose  their  lives,  as  the  Catholic  clergy 
do.  When  pestilence  is  in  the  city,  they  fly  to 
the  country,  and  when  the  voice  of  reproach  from 
their  own  people  pursues  them,  they  take  refuge 
behind  their  wives  and  children  "  according  to 
law."  If  the  example  of  the  Catholic  Priests  is 
pointed  at,  to  shame  them  by  the  comparison,  it 
.only  fills  them  with  additional  hatred  towards 
clerical  celibacy.  "  A  Bishop"  must  be  "  the  hus- 
band of  one  wife,"  and  to  say  the  contrary  is, 
you  tell  us,  "  fighting  against  God." 

Now,  in  the  Catholic  church,  the  vow  of  celibacy 
and  chastity,  voluntarily  assumed,  is  binding,  and 
constitutes  a  moral  incapacity  on  the  part  of  those 
who  have  taken  it,  to  enter  into  matrimonial  en- 
gagements. Such  is  the  case  which  you  select  from 
Betlarmine,  in  which  he  contends,  as  you  cannot 
but  know,  that  the  marriage  is  essentially  mtllani 
void.  The  Catholic  religion  teaches  that  the 
vows  of  the  Priest  in  his  ordination,  which  he 
makes  by  his  own  free  will  and  choice,  are  an 
absolute  impediment  to  any  marriage  vow,  sabse- 
quently  made.  To  illustrate  the  case,  then,  cited 
from  Bellarmine,  I  would  ask  you  whether  an 
act  of  conjugal  infidelity,  in  a  married  person,  is 
as  great  a  sin  as  polygamy  1  In  other  words, 
whether  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  was  more  guilty 
in  his  libertinism,  being  the  husband  of  only  one 
wife,  than  he  was  afterwards,  when  for  the  peace 


251 


of  his  conscience,  and  "by  virtue  of  an  indul- 
gence" from  the  Reformers,  he  became  the  hus- 
band of  tico?  Whilst  sneaking  on  this  subject  1 
may  as  well  direct  your  attention  to  a  permanent 
"  indulgence,"  (I  mean  according  to  your  defini- 
tion, "license  to  commit  sin")  which  I  find  record- 
ed in  your  Confession  of  Faith,  in  favour  of  poly- 
gamy. In  cases  of  adultery,  "  or  such  wilful  de- 
sertion as  can  in  no  way  be  remedied  by  the  church 
or  civil  magistrate,"  the  injured  party  may  obtain 
a  divorce,  and  toitk  the  approbation  of  the  church 
enter  into  a  new  contract  of  marriage  !  !  (See  chap, 
xxiv.  p.  110.) 

If  the  church  had  gone  a  little  farther,  and  to 
this  "  wilful  desertion,"  added  "  incompatability 
of  disposition,"  as  another  cause  for  dissolving 
marriage,  it  would  have  anticipated  the  morality 
of  the  French  Revolution,  and  even  of  Miss 
Wright. 

Touching  the  bigotry  and  intolerance  of  the 
Presbyterian  creed,  I  am  glad  to  see  that  they  are 
becoming  antiquated,  if  we  may  credit  your  mag- 
nificent professions  of  liberality.  But  with  regret 
I  add,  that  in  reference  to  Catholics,  you  make  an 
assertion,  which,  in  justice  to  his  holiness  and 
myself,  I  must  say  is  not  true.  "Once  every 
year,"  you  tell  us,  "  the  Pope  at  Rome,  publicly, 
and  in  full  form,  excommunicates  all  Protestants; 
(not  true)  and  absolution  is  refused  to  all  those 
who  harbour  these  heretics  who  read  their  books 
&c,  (not  true)  and  all  ecclesiastical  persons,  Mr. 
Hughes  included,  are  required  to  publish  the  Bull 
that  the  faithful  may  know  its  contents,"  (not  a 
word  of  truth  in  it.)  How  can  you  write  such 
tales  !  But  it  is  true  that  once  every  year  the 
Pope  at  Rome,  and  all  the  clergy  throughout  the 
world,  pray  to  Almighty  God  for  the  conversion 
of  all  those  who  are  under  the  delusion  of  heresy, 
as  well  as  Jews  and  Pagans,  that  they  may  be 
gathered  from  their  wanderings,  into  the  unity  of 
faith  and  into  the  one  sheepfold  of  Jesus  Christ. 
This  is  probably  what  you  have  mistaken  for  ex- 
communication. 

The  Catholic  belief  is,  that  out  of  the  true 
church  there  is  no  salvation.  But  besides  those 
who  profess  the  true  religion,  it  considers  as  impli- 
cit members  of  the  church,  those  who,  invincibly 
ignorant  of  the  truth,  yet  have  so  upright  and  sin 
cere  a  heart  towards  God,  that  they  would  em- 
brace the  truth  if  they  knew  it.  It  holds,  that 
those  who  sin  without  the  law  (except  by  their 
own  fault)  shall  not  be  judged  by  the  law..  Has 
Presbyterianism  so  much  charity  1     Let  us  see. 

The  church,  says  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
"  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  who 
profess  the  true  religion."  This  is  the  house  of 
God,  "  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility 
of  salvation.''''  Now  let  us  see  how  large  a  por- 
tion of  the  human  race  your  doctrine  excludes 
from  this  "house  of  God,"  and  to  how  small  a 
number  it  reduces  the  elect.  1st.  All  the  Jews 
since  Christ,  and  all  the  Pagans  since  and  before. 
2.  All  Mohammedans,  Greeks  schisjnatics,  heretics 
of  the  east,  and  Catholics,  whom  it  expressly  de- 
nounces as  "  Idolators."  Here  then  all  are  lost 
but  Protestants.     But  3d,  how  will  thtxj   fare  T 


The  Synod  of  Dort,  which  you  hold,  condemned 
Arminiunism  as  heresy.  Of  course  those  who  hold 
Arminian  doctrines  do  not 'profess  the  true  religion,' 
and  are  shut  out,  consequently,  from  the  "  house  of 
God."  Now  it  is  known  to  all  men  that  4th,  most 
of  the  Episcopalians,  and  5th,  most  of  the  Metho- 
dists are  on  the  side  of  Arminianism,  consequently 
they  are  excluded.  6.  Lutherans  are,  for  the  error  of 
consubstantiaiion.  7th,  the  Drs.  Brownlee  and  Cox 
of  New  York,  have  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  all 
the  Bishops  in  the  General  Assembly,  that  the  Qua- 
kers are  not  even  Christians,  consequently  they  are 
done  for.  As  for  8th,  Unitarians,  9th,  Universalists, 
10th,  Swedenborgians,  and  others ;  it  would  be  out 
of  the  question  to  cherish  even  a  hope  for  them. 
This,  Rev.  Sir,  is  the  charity  of  the  Presbyterian 
doctrine.  Let  any  man  who  has  common  sense 
see,  whether  these  consequences  do  not  flow  from 
the  definition  of  "the  church,"  "out  of  which  there 
is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation  as  laid  down 
in  your  Confession  of  Faith,  "amended,"  in  1821. 
Which  is  the  more  exclusive  ]  Which,  the  more 
charitable  towards  involuntary  and  invincible  error? 
Let  those  who  have  eyes  and  understanding  de- 
cide. 

Your  objections  to  the  dogma  of  the  Eucharist, 
are  but  the  repetition  of  those  which  have  been 
urged  a  thousand  times  before,  and  a  thousand  times 
refuted.  You  pass  over  most  of  the  arguments 
adduced  in  my  Letter  No.  27,  to  which  I  beg 
leave  to  refer  the  reader,  that  I  may  avoid  the 
necessity  of  repeating  what  has  already  been 
said.  You  admit  that  Berringer  was  condemned 
as  an  heretic  for  denying  the  doctrine  of  Tran- 
substantiation  in  1059,  and  yet  by  a  contradiction 
which  I  shall  not  pretend  to  explain,  you  assert 
that  Transubstantiation  was  not  a  doctrine  of  the 
church  until  "  1215."  That  is,  a  man  is  con- 
demned by  the  whole  church  for  denying  a  doc- 
trine which  did  not  exist !  !  Now  this  fact  alone 
would  prove  its  existence,  unless,  indeed,  you 
can  persuade  men  into  the  belief  of  a  paradox. 
Here  then  you  furnish  all  requisite  testimony 
against  yourself.  The  question  is  not  of  the  word 
Transubstantiation,  as  used  by  the  Council  of 
Lateran,  but  of  the  doctrine  which  it  expresses. 
Did  that  doctrine  exist  before  the  Council  1  I  say 
it  did,  you  say  it  did,  since  you  admit  that  Berrin- 
ger was  condemned  in  1059  for  denying  it.  Here 
then  we  are  ^agreed.  For  the  rest,  your  quibble 
is  like  that  of  the  Socinians  who  contend  that  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  was  not  believed  in  the 
primitive  church  because  the  words  "  Consub- 
stantial  with  the  Father"  were  first  used  by  the 
Council  of  Nice,  not  for  the  purpose  as  you 
know,  of  creating  a  new  doctrine  ;  but  on  the 
contrary  for  the  express  purpose  of  defending  a 
doctrine  which  had  always  been  believed. 

But  it  is  not  in  this  alone  that  we  can  trace 
the  exact  similarity  of  your  reasoning,  to  that  of 
the  Socinian.  It  pervades  the  whole  of  your 
objections.  To  illustrate  this  allow  me  to  state 
some  of  your  difficulties  in  juxta-position  with 
those  of  the  Unitarian  argument  as  sustained  by 
Professor  Norton  in  his  "  Statement  of  Reasons" 
against   the   Trinity  and   the   divinity  of  Jesus 


952 


Christ.  In  his  preface,  he  apologises  for  writino- 
against  a  doctrine  which  he  regards  as  exploded 
by  all  sensible  men,  for  its  absurdity.  He  means 
the  Trinity.  To  prove  this  he  does  every  thing 
that  you  do,  to  show  that  Transubstantiation 
should  be  exploded  by  sensible  men. 

He  quotes  the  scriptures  as  abundantly  and  as 
figuratively  as  you  do.  He  cites  passages  from 
the  Fathers  as  confidently  as  you  do.  He  con- 
tends that  the  Trinity  is  as  great  an  absurdity  as 
Transubstantiation,  and  the  weapons  which  you 
wield  against  the  one,  he  wields  against  the  other. 

The  arguments  in  both  cases  are  neither  more 
nor  less  than  deistical.  Mr.  Breckinridge'applies 
reason  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  real  presence  in 
the  Eucharist — Mr.  Norton  to  the  doctrine  of  three 
persons  in  one  God.  Yet  God,  says  the  Bible, 
out  of  stones  could  raise  up  children  unto  Abra- 
ham. 

Mr.  Breckinridge. 
"  It  is  not  a  contradiction 
to  say  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
a  perfect  man,  and  yet  God, 
though  the  Revelation  is 
above  our  reason." 


Mr.  Norton. 

"  The  doctrine  that  Jesus 

Christ  is  both  God  and  man, 

is    a    contradiction    in 

terms."  (Title  of  a  chapter.) 

Mr.  Norton. 
"  The     proposition     that 
Christ  is  God,  proved  to  be 
false  from  Scripture."  Title 
of  Sect.  III. 

Unitarian. 
The  Deity  of  Jesus  is 
not  only  contrary  to  Scrip- 
ture, but  it  is  contrary  to 
reason,  and  contradicts  all 
our  senses.  We  see,  hear, 
feel,  smell,  and  (if  possible) 
taste — a  man,  and  yet  you, 
Mr.  Breckinridge,  contrary 
to  Scripture  and  reason,  and 
all  our  senses,  require  us 
to  believe  that  he  is  God! 

Unitarian. 
Thus  we  see  that  the  di- 
vinity of  Christ  is  a  false, 
shocking,  and  novel  doc- 
trine. "  Will  any  one  at 
the  present  day  shock  our 
feelings  and  understanding 
to  the  uttermost,  by  telling 
us  that,  Almighty  God  was 
incarnate  in  an  infant, 
and  wrapped  in  swaddling 
clothes?"  Norton,  p.  31. 
To  show  how  "shocking" 
this  doctrine  is  he  quotes 
Dr.  Watts: 
"This  infant  is  the  mighty 

God, 
Come  to  be  suckled  and 
adored." 

Now,  Rev'd  Sir,  put  your  invention  to  the  tor- 
ture, and  see  whether  a  single  argument  can  be 
raised  against  the  pretended  unreasonableness  of 
Transubstantiation,  that  will  not  hold  against 
the  Incarnation.  The  one  is  as  contrary  to  rea- 
son as  the  other.  Did  I  not  then,  rightly  define 
Protestantism"  as  the  middle  gound  between  an- 
cient Christianity  and  modern  Deism,  combining 
certain  elements  of  both,  and  unable  to  defend  itself 
against  either'?"     Let  reason  be  the  rule,  and  tell 


Mr.  Breckinridge. 
The  doctrine  of  Christ's 
real  presence  in  the  Eucha- 
rist proved  to  be  false  from 
Scripture. 

Mr,  Breckinridge. 
"  The  doctrine  of  Tran- 
substantiation is  not  only 
against  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Fathers,  but  it  is  con- 
trary to  reason,  and  contra- 
dicts all  our  senses." 


Mr.  Breckinridge. 
"  Thus  we  see  that  Tran- 
substantiation   is    a    false, 
shocking,  novel  doctrine." 


me  which  is  easier  to  be  believed  ;  that  God  was 
an  infant,  "  suckled  and  adored,"  or  that  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are,  by  the  Divine  Om- 
nipotence, truly  contained  under  the  appearance 
of  bread  and  wine  1  You  believe  that  "  Omni- 
potence, Omniscience,  and  Omnipresence,  were 
wrapt  in  swaddling-clothes,  and  abased  to  the 
homely  usages  of  a  stable  and  a  manger,-"  "  that 
the  artificer  of  the  whole  universe  turned  carpen- 
ter (I  quote  from  an  Orthodox  Protestant  ser- 
mon,) and  exercised  an  inglorious  trade  in  a  lit- 
tle cell !"  "  That  the  eternal  God  could  be  sub- 
ject to  the  meannesses  of  hunger  and  thirst,  and 
be  afflicted  in  all  his  appetites."  "  That  the 
Creator,  Governor,  and  Judge  of  the  world  was 
abused  in  all  his  concerns  and  relations;  scourged, 
spit  upon,  mocked  and  at  last  crucified.'"  All  this 
you  believe,  if  you  believe  the  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ;  and  yet  you  reject  Transubstantiation 
because  your  reason  forsooth,  cannot  comprehend 
it.     Can  it  comprehend  the  mysteries  just  stated  1 

Now  for  your  objections  under  their  respective 
heads. 

1.  You  begin  by  stating  that  "Evangelical 
Protestants  all  allow,  as  their  standards  clearly 
evince,  that  Christ  is  spiritually  present,  and  the 
truth  of  his  words  recorded  above  (this  is  my 
body,  this  is  blood,)  they  undoubtedly  believe." 
Let  me  then  take  you  at  your  word,  "  Christ, 
you  say,  is  spiritually  present."  By  this  I  un- 
derstand that  the  spirit,  soul,  or  divinity  of  Christ 
is  present.  If  it  does  not  mean  this,  it  means 
nothing.  This  presence  of  Christ,  as  to  the  fact, 
is  roundly  stated  ;  but  as  to  the  manner,  it  is 
qualified  by  the  word  'spiritually.'  Now  this 
statement  goes  far  towards  the  Catholic  doctrine. 
For  Christ  is  both  God  and  man ;  and  if  he  is 
present  at  all,  it  follows  that  he  is  corporally  as 
well  as  '  spiritually'  present.  Will  you  separate 
the  soul  of  Christ  from  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
say  that  he  is  present  "  spiritually,"  and  absent 
corporally.  This  presence  of  Christ  is  connected 
with  the  locality  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  of  course 
it  is  a  specific  presence  ;  and  we  are  told  that 
"Christ  is  present  'spiritually;'  that  is,  all  but 
his  body."  Your  Confession,  page  127.  tells  us 
that,  at  the  reception  of  the  bread  and  wine,  this  ab- 
sent body  and  blood,  are  "  spiritually  present  to  the 
faith  of  believers  in  that  ordinance  as  the  ele- 
ments themselves  are,  to  their  outward  senses."  A 
body  absent — present !  Christ  the  man-God 
"  really  present,"  without  his  body  !  His  body 
and  blood  present  spiritually  ;  but  not  corporally  ! 
Do  you  understand  it,  Rev'd  Sir  ?     I  do  not. 

If  it  mean  that  indefinite  presence,  which  was 
promised  to  "  two  or  three  gathered  together  in 
his  name,"  then  we  can  comprehend  °it.  But 
that  Chiist  should  be  really  present  in  a  special 
manner,  as  you  assert,  and  your  standards  teach 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  and  yet  be  present,  whole 
Christ,  without  a  body,  is  above  comprehension. 
You  however  make  the  statement,  and  from  you 
we  must  wait  for  the  explanation.  The  real  pre- 
sence as  revealed  by  Christ  was  indeed  a  "hard 
saying,"  which  the  Jews  sought  to  escape  by 
"  walking  no   more  with   him,"'  and  the  Protes- 


253 


tants endeavour  to  evade  by  an  explanation  which 
spoils  a  mystery,  and  substitutes  a  paradox 


Tbe  literal  sense  is  hard  to  flesh  and  blood  ; 
But  nonsense  never  could  be  understood. 
Now  the  argument  or  objections  which  you 
make  against  the  mystery  of  the  Eucharist  under 
the  first  head,  are  from  your  interpretation  of 
Scripture.  Their  amount  is  tbis:  the  Scriptures 
often  speak  figuratively,  therefore  the  words  of 
Christ,  both  in  the  6th  chapter  of  St.  John  and 
in  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist,  are  to  be  under- 
stood figuratively.  Here  again  is  the  reasoning  of 
the  Unitarian  whenever  you  quote  the  passages  that 
establish  the  divinity  of  Christ.  They  are,  he  says, 
tobe  understood  figuratively.  But  there  is  one  brief 
reply.  When  Christ  said  "  I  am  the  door,"  "  I 
am  the  vine,"  &c.  those  who  heard  him  under- 
stood him  to  speak  figuratively.  But  when  he  said 
"I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  hea- 
ven." "  The  bread  which  I  will  give  is  my  flesh 
for  the  life  of  the  world,"  "  unless  you  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  you 
cannot  have  life  in  you,"  &c.  his  hearers  understood 
him  to  speak  literally,  and  if  that  was  an  error, 
as  you  say,  his  language  gave  rise  to  it,  and  his 
silence,  when  they  objected  that  it  was  "  a  haid 
saying,"  confirmed  them  in  it.  Therefore  his  lan- 
guage was  not  figurative.  Figurative  language 
would  not  have  offended  them.  He  reproached 
them  for  their  incredulity,  he  suffered  them  to  go 
away;  therefore  they  understood  him  literally. 
And  it  is  because  Protestants  do  not  believe, 
that  they  also  go  back  and  walk  no  more  with 
Jesus,  unles  he  will  accommodate  them  with  a 
figurative  explanation,  which  he  refused  to  his 
own  disciples. 

But  in  the  institution,  he  took  bread  and  lite- 
rally fulfilled  what  he  had  promised.  He  blessed 
and  broke  and  gave  to  them;  saying,  take  ye  and 
eat,  this  is  my  body,  which  is  given  for  you...-. 
This  is  my  blood  which  shall  be  shed  for  many 
unto  the  remission  of  sins."  It  was  not  the  figure 
of  his  body  that  was  given  for  us  on  the  cross  ;  it 
was  not  the  figure  of  his  blood  which  was  shed 
for  us.  Therefore  he  spoke  of  his  real  body  and 
blood,  and  his  language  was  literal  and  not  figura- 
tive. And  consequently  Protestants,  in  appealing 
to  figure,  oppose  the  language  and  conduct  of 
Jesus  Christ,  at  every  point  of  the  promise,  and  of 
the  institution  of  the  holy  Eucharist. 

As  to  the  pretended  "  absurdities  and  inexpli- 
cable difficulties,  which  you  find  in  Christ's 
words,"  according  to  Catholic  interpretation,  I 
must  refer  you  to  a  higher  tribunal.  But  the 
plain  Scripture  is,  "  this  is  my  body ;  this  is  my 
blood."  And  these  plain  words  of  Scripture,  you 
tell  us,  are  "  absurd,"  unless  we  understand  the 
contrary  of  what  they  assert ;  so  as  to  read  "  this 
is  not  my  body,  but  iraw?  which  is  given  for  you ;" 
this  is  not  my  blood,  but  wine,  which  shall  be 
shed  for  many  unto  the  remission  of  sins."  This 
amendment  of  Scripture  may  relieve  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  imputation  of  having  used  "absurd" 
language,  if  you  will  have  it  so,  but  in  that  case 
I  ask,  is  the  Scripture  plain  and  intelligible  to 
all  1 


The  attempt  to  convert  St.  Augustine,  Bellar- 
mine,  Cardinal  Cajetan,  Bishop  Fisher,  &c,  into 
Protestants  on  this  subject,  is  what  I  would  call 
overdoing  the  business.  It  proves  your  courage, 
not  your  cause.  Bellarmine  asserted  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  real  presence  and  Transubstantia- 
tion  are  clearly  proved  from  Scripture,  but  he  ad- 
mitted the  possibility  of  a  man's  reading  the 
Scripture,  clear  and  plain  as  its  language  is,  with- 
out being  convinced.  Just  as  you  would  say, 
that  however  clearly  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  re- 
vealed, it  may  still  be  doubted  whether  "a  man 
who  is  not  froward"  will  be  convinced  of  it,  by 
reading  the  Scriptures. 

Again,  the  passages  which  you  quole  from  St. 
Augustine,  (De  Doct.  Christ.  Lib.  3.  c.  46.)  and 
from  Theodoret,  (Dial.  2.)  and  other  passages 
from  Origen,  Ambrose,  Isidore,  Chrysostom,  &c. 
which  you  copy  from  the  Calvinistic  objections 
of  Claude  and  Aubertin,  in  their  controversy  with 
Nicole,  are  ambiguous,  taken  by  themselves ,-  but 
taken  with  other  passages,  from  the  same  Fathers 
in  which,  as  I  shall  presently  show,  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  is  clearly  stated,  they  are 
quite  intelligible.  If  you  wish  to  see  a  full  and 
complete  refutation  of  all  these  ambiguous  pas- 
sages of  the  Fathers,  I  refer  you  to  the  third  vol- 
ume of  "  Perpetuite  de  la  Foi ;"  in  which  they 
are  triumphantly  vindicated  against  the  false 
meaning  ascribed  to  them  by  the  Calvinistic  min- 
isters. If  you  have  not  this  work,  1  shall  have 
great  pleasure  in  loaning  it,  and  you  will  see  that 
these  passages,  which  express  neither  the  Catho- 
lic, nor  the  Protestant  doctrine  on  the  Eucharist, 
are  reconcileable  only  with  the  former.  Some  of 
them,  even  as  quoted  by  yourself,  are  a  condem- 
nation of  the  Protestant  doctrine.  For  example 
St.  Isidore  speaking  of  the  bread  and  wine  says' 
"these  two  are  visible,  but  being  sanctified  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  they  pass  into  the  Sacrament  of 
his  divine  body."  This  language  from  a  Catho- 
lic pulpit  would  be  understood.  But  how  would 
it  sound  in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  on  a 
Sacrament  Sunday?  If  the  minister  were  to 
speak  of  the  bread  and  wine  "passing  into"  any 
thing,  but  what  it  was  before,  would  not  the  peo- 
ple accuse  him  of  teaching  something  very  like 
"  Transubstantiation."  And  yet  this  is  made  an 
objection,-  and  the  rest  are  like  it.  Let  us  try 
another,  which  you  quote  from  Theodoret. 

"  After  sanctification  the  mystical  symbols  do 
not  depart  from  their  nature,  for  they  remain  still 
in  their  former  substance  and  figure  and  form  and 
may  be  seen  and  touched  just  as  before."  All 
this  is  true  as  to  appearances.-  but  he  g-oes  on  to 
show  that  notwithstanding  these  appearances,  "they 
(the  Eucharist)  are  understood  to  be  that  which 
they  are  made,  and  are  believed  and  venerated  (or 
"  adored")  as  being  what  they  are  believed  to 
be."  Would  you  venture  to  hold  even  this  lan- 
guage to  a  Presbyterian  congregation?  If  you 
did,  they  would  say  that  you  are  half  a  Papist,  at 
least;  and  you  would  be  called  to  account  for 
your  sermon.  And  yet  these  are  the  proofs  that 
the  Fathers  held  the  doctrine  which  you  preach  !!! 
Even  the  ambiguous  language  of  the  Fathers,  is 


254 


irreconeileable  with  the  Protestant  Lord's  Supper 
of  mere  bread  and  wine.  Even  your  own  quota- 
tions are  against  you. 

The  exceptions  which  you  profess  to  find,  as  to 
the  "unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers"  on  the 
Catholic  faith  of  the  Eucharist,  have  as  much 
foundation  in  reality,  as  the  contradictions  which 
the  Deist  pretends  to  discover  in  the  comparison  of 
the  four  Gospels.  In  both  cases  there  are  appar- 
ent disagreements.  But  to  proceed.  After  hav- 
ing claimed  the  testimony  of  Scripture  by  quali- 
fying the  affirmative  words  of  Christ,  with  a  Pro- 
testant negative,  making  him  say  "  no,  this  is  not 
my  body,"  instead  of  what  he  actually  said  "this 
is  ray  body  ;  this  is  my  blood."  You  appeal  to 
the  Fathers  under  your  second  head,  for  you 
"  will  meet  me  at  all  points."  By  this  you 
would  persuade  our  Protestant  readers  that  the 
Fathers  held  the  doctrine  of  mere  bread  and  wine 
as  they  do.  Now  to  our  Protestant  readers  I 
leave  the  decision  of  the  case,  let  them  judge  be- 
tween us." 

You  state  as  a  consequence  from  other  state- 
ments, "  that  the  Protestant  doctrine  (viz  :  mere 
bread  and  wine)  was  not  only  tolerated,  but  pro- 
fessed and  held  at  large  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church."  What  say  the  Fathers  on  the  subject? 
Hear  them. 

Hear  St.  Ignatius,  in  his  epistle  to  the  faithful 
of  Smyrna:  "These  Heretics  abstain  from  the 
Eucharist  and  the  oblations,  because  they  do  not 
acknowledge  the  Eucharist  to  be  the  flesh  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  which  suffered 
for  our  sins,  and  which  the  Father  resuscitated  by 
his  goodness."  Who  were  the  "  Protestants" 
then  ?  St.  Ignatius  or  these  Heretics  ? 

"  How,  says  St.  Irenaeus,  can  they,  (other 
Heretics)  be  assured  that  the  bread  over  which 
they  have  given  thanks,  is  the  body  of  the  Lord1?" 
(Adver.  Hor.  Lib.  4.  c.  34.)  And  again,  no  less 
than  three  times  he  repeats,  "the  Eucharist  is 
the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  it  is  made  so  by  the 
word  of  God."  (Ibid.  L.  5.  c.  2.)  This  was  in 
the  Apostolic  age,  long  before  the  year  "  1215." 

St.  Jerome,  "  But  as  for  us,  let  us  hearken  to 
what  the  Gospel  tells  us,  that  the  bread  which 
the  Lord  broke  and  gave  to  his  disciples,  is  the 
body  of  our  Lord  and  our  Saviour,  since  he  said  to 
them  ;  take  and  eat,  this  is  my  body."  (Epist. 
ad  Hedib.) 

St.  Chrysostom  says,  "  The  blessed  chalice  is 
the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  is 
very  terrible,  because  that  which  is  in  the  cha- 
lice is  that  which  flowed  from  the  side  of  Jesus 
Christ:'1     (Horn.  24,  Epist.  1.  ad.  Cor.) 

St.  Ambrose  says,  "  He  (Jesus)  took  bread  into 
his  holy  hands ;  before  it  is  consecrated  it  is  bread, 
after  the  words  of  Jesus  Christ  have  b^en  applied 
to  it,  it  is  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ.  Hear  what  he 
says  to  you,  take  and  eat;  this  is  my  body.  The 
Priest  says,  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  you  answer, 
Amen ;  that  is,  it  is  true,  let  the  your  heart  be 
penetrated  with  what  your  mouth  confesses." 
(De  Saer.  Lib.  4.  c.  5.)  Would  any  minister 
dare  to  pronounce  these  words  of  the  Fathers 
in  a  Protestant  pulpit]     And  yet  you,  Rev'd  Sir, 


would  persuade  the  poor  people,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  mere  bread  and  wine,  which  Carlostadt 
invented  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  bequeathed 
to  Protestantism,  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Fa- 
thers ! ! ! 

St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  speaking  of  the  conse- 
crated chalice,  asks  "  who  shall  dare  to  say  that 
it  is  not  his  blood  V  (Catech.  4.") 

Origin,  "  When  you  receive  the  body  of  the  Lord, 
you  take  all  possible  precaution  that  not  the 
smallest  part  of  it  should  fall-"  (Horn.  13  in 
Exod.) 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  "Jesus  Christ  returns  and 
appears  in  our  mysteries  invisibly  as  God,  visibly 
in  his  body,  and  he  gives  us  to  touch  his  holy  flesh:'' 
(Comment  in  Joann.  p.  1104.) 

The  Council  of  Nice  decreed  "that  neither 
canon  nor  custom  has  taught,  that  they  (deacons) 
who  have  themselves  no  power  to  offer  (/.  e.  in 
the  sacrifice  of  mass)  should  give  the  body  of  Christ 
to  them  (viz.  Priests)  who  have  that  power." 
(Canon  xviii.) 

St.  Athanasius  says:  "  Our  sanctuaries  are  now 
pure,  as  they  always  were ;  having  been  rendered 
venerable  by  the  blood  alone  of  Christ,  and  embel- 
lished by  his  worship."  (Apol.  adver.  Arian.  T. 
1.  p.  127.)  "  Take  care  then  he  says,  (in  anoth- 
er place)  take  care,  O  Deacon,  not  to  give  to  the 
unworthy  the  blood  of  the  immaculate  body,  lest  you 
incur  the  guilt  of  giving  holy  things  to  dogs." 
(Serm  de  Incontam.  Myst.  T.  ii.  p.  35.) 

St.  Ephrein  of  Edessa, "  Abraham  placed  earth- 
lyfood  before  celestial  spirits,  of  which  they  ate. 
(Gen.  xviii.)  This  was  wonderful.  But  what 
Christ  has  done  for  us  greatly  exceeds  this,  and 
transcends  all  speech,  and  all  conception.  To  us, 
that  are  in  the  flesh,  he  hath  given  to  eat  his  body 
and  blood.  Myself  incapable  of  comprehending 
the  mysteries  of  God,  I  dare  not  proceed  ;  and 
should  I  attempt  it,  I  should  only  show  my  own 
rashness."     (De.  Nal.  Dei.  T.  iii.  p.  182.) 

St.  Optatus  of  Milevis,  says,  "  What  is  so  sa- 
criligious  as  to  break,  to  erase,  and  to  remove  the 
altars  of  God,  on  which  yourselves  made  offer- 
ings'? On  them  the  vows  of  the  people  and  the 
members  of  Christ  were  borne.  For  what  is  the 
altar,  but  the  seat  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ'? 
What  offence  had  Christ  given,  whose  body  and 
blood  at  certain  times,  do  dwell  there?  This 
huge  impiety  is  doubled,  whilst  you  broke  also  the 
chalices,  the  bearers  of  the  blood  of  Christ."  (Con- 
tra Parmen,  (the  Donatist,)  Lib.  vi.  p.  91,  92,  93.) 
Now,  Rev.  sir,  if  Donatists,  or  other  persons 
were  to  destroy  all  the  communion  tables,  and 
all  the  cups  for  the  sacramental  vine  in  the  whole 
Protestant  world,  would  any  Protestant  complain 
of  it,  in  the  language  of  St.  Optatus  1  And  yet  you 
would  persuade  the  people  that  Protestants  and 
the  Fathers,  believed  the  same  doctrine  touching 
the  sacrament,  and  that  the  Catholic  dogma  was 
introduced  A.  D.  "  1215." 

St.  Basil.  "  About  the  things  that  God  has 
spoken,  there  should  be  no  hesitation,  nor  doubt, 
but  a  firm  persuasion,  that  all  is  true  and  possible, 
though  nature  be  against  it.  Herein  lies  the  strug- 
gle of  faith.     The  Jews  therefore  strove  among 


255 


themselves,  saying:  How  can  this  man  give  us 
his  flesh  to  eat?  Then  Jesus  said  to  them: 
Amen,  Amen,  I  say  unto  you,  unless  you  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  you 
shall  not  have  life  in  you.  John  v.  53,  54." 
(Rogula  viii.  Moral.  T.  ii.  p.  210.) 

You  say  the  Fathers  did  not  understand  the 
6th  chapter  of  St.  John  as  relating  to  the  Eucha- 
rist. If  you  wish  to  correct  this  mistake,  you 
have  only  to  consult  Origen,  (Horn,  in  Num.  1(3.) 
Cyprian  (dc  ceena  Dom.  Lib.  1.  Coutr.  Judeos,  c. 
22.)  Hilary,  (Lib.  de  Trin.)  Basil,  (de  Reg.  Moral.) 
Chysostom,  (Horn.  41.  In  Joann.)  Epiphanius, 
Hasres  55.)  Amer,  (Lib.  4.  de  sacr.  c.  5.)  Augus- 
tine, (de  Pecc.  Mr.  Lib.  1.  c.  20.)  Jerome,  (Comm. 
in  cap.  1.  Ep.  ad  Ephes.)  Ml  the  Fathers,  all  the 
Christians  of  all  ages,  understood  the  6th  chapter 
of  St.  John  of  the  Eucharist,  except  the  Protes- 
tants; and  when  they  attempt  to  explain  it  other- 
wise, they  make  awkward  business  of  it. 

When  the  Fathers  speak  of  bread  before  the 
consecration,  they  mean  bread  ;  when  they  call  it 
bread  after  the  consecration,  they  mean  the  body 
of  Christ  under  the  appearance  of  bread,  and  so 
Catholics  at  this  day  are  accustomed  to  call  it  the 
bread  of  life.  This  is  proved  by  their  adoring 
that  which  was  contained  under  the  appearances 
of  bread  and  wine.     Hear  St.  Augustine  : 

"  And  because  he  (Christ)  walked  in  the  flesh, 
he  also  gave  us  his  very  flesh  to  eat  for  our  salva- 
tion ;  but  no   one  eat  this  flesh   unless   he   adores 

it  beforehand so  far  are  we  from  committing 

sin  by  adoring  it,  that  we  should  commit  sin  in 
not  adoring  it.  (St.  Aug.  in  Psalm  98.) 

St.  Cyril.  "Jesus  Christ  does  not  quicken  us 
by  the  participation  of  his  spirit  only,  but  also  by 
giving  us  to  eat  the  flesh  which  he  assumed"  (De 
Incar.  p.  707.) 

St.  Augustine.  "  God  gives  us  to  eat  truly  the 
body  in  which  he  suffered  so  much.''''  (In  Psalm 
33.)  And  again,  "We  receive,  says  he,  with  a 
faithful  heart  and  mouth,  the  mediator  between.  God 
and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  has  given 
us  his  body  to  eat,  and  his  blood  to  drink,  although  it 
seems  a  more  horrible  thing  to  eat  the  flesh  of  a  man, 
than  to  slay  him,  and  to  drink  human  blood,  than 
to  shed  it.""  (Contr.  Advsers.  leg.  et.  proph.  Lib.  2. 
c.  9.) 

St.  Chrysostom,  "The  body  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
placed  before  us  that  we  may  touch  it.  <0  how 
I  should  desire,  many  of  you  exclaim,'  says  he, 
(addressing  his  audience)  'howl  should  desire 
to  see  the  form  of  his  (Christ's)  countenance  and 
of  his  clothes.'  God  has  granted  you  more,  for 
you  touch  himself,  you  eat  himself."  (Horn.  83. 
in  Matt.)  Here,  Rev.  Sir,  was  your  objection 
about  eating  God,  more  than  seven  centuries  be- 
fore "  1215,"  and  "  Avenoes,  the  Arabian  philoso- 
pher." Was  St.  Chrysostom,  were  the  believers 
whom  he  addressed  in  this  language,  Protestants? 
And  yet  you  would  persuade  the  people  that  the 
Fathers  held  the  figurative  sense,  the  mere  bread 
and  wine  of  Protestantism  !  ! !  No;  the  rational- 
ism, that  is,  in  other  words,  the  infidelity  of  Pro- 
testantism, would  be  shocked  at  the  language  of 
the  Fathers,  because  it  was  and  is,  the  language 

M* 


of  the  Catholic  church.  Protestant  ministers,  (if 
indeed  they  are  aware  of  it  themselves)  dare  not 
repeat  in  their  pulpits,  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers 
in  their  own  words.  The  people  would  discover 
that  the  Fathers  were  Catholics,  and  that  no 
Christians  ever  held  your  doctrines  before  the 
days  of  Carlostadius  and  Luther.  What  would 
they  say,  if  to  convince  them  that  the  Fathers 
held  the  doctrine  of  "  Evangelical  Protestants" 
on  the  Eucharist,  you  were  to  quote  the  fol- 
lowing testimony  from  St.  Augustine.  "  Who 
could  understand,  my  brethren,  says  this  Father, 
how  that  saying,  '  he  was  borne  in  his  hands ;' 
could  be  accomplished  in  a  man.  For  a  person 
may  be  borne  by  the  hands  of  another,  but  no  one 
is  borne  in  his  own  proper  hands.  We  cannot 
understand  this  according  to  the  letter  of  David, 
but  we  can  understand  it  of  Jesus  Christ,  tor 
Jesus  Christ  was  borne  in  his  hands  whon  speak- 
ing of  his  very  body,  he  said,  this  is  my  body  : 
for  he  bore  his  body  in  his  hands.,,  (In  Psalm 
33.)  How  would  the  General  Assembly  stop 
their  ears  if  any  one  were  to  propose  this  "  hard 
saying,"  as  the  doctrine  of  "  Evangelical  Pro- 
testants," and  yet  you  have  asserted  that  they 
hold  the  same  doctrine  with  the  Fathers,  on  the 
Eucharist!  This  was  the  belief  of  the  Church 
when  St.  Augustine  preached  some  fourteen 
hundred  years  ago ;  it  was  the  belief  of  the 
Church,  when  St.  Ignatius  reproached  the  Here- 
tics with  refusing  to  acknowledge  that  the  Eu- 
charist was  the  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ; 
seventeen  hundred  years  ago;  it  is  the  belief  of 
the  Church  this  day.  Were  the  Fathers  Pro- 
testants ? 

St.  Augustine.  "  It  has  pleased  the  Holy 
Ghost  that  in  the  honour  of  this  great  Sacrament, 
the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  should  enter  into  the 
mouth  of  the  Christian  before  all  other  meats." 
(Epist.  ad  Januar.)  Do  we  not  still  receive  fast- 
ing? 

St.  Cyril,  "  Since  Jesus  Christ  is  in  us,  by 
his  proper  flesh,  we  shall  assuredly  rise  again." 
(In  Joann.  L.  4.  p.  363." 

Again  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  "That  which  ap- 
pears to  be  bread  is  not  bread,  although  the  taste 
judge  it  to  be  bread,  but  it  is  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ .-  and  that  which  appears  to  be  wine,  is 
not  wine,  although  the  taste  testifies  that  it  is,  but 
it  is  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ. ,"  (Catech.  9.)  Have  I 
given  enoughto  show  Protestants  how  far  they  have 
been  deceived  by  their  books  and  their  ministers, 
(I  do  not  say  intentionally)  when  it  is  pretended 
that  the  Fathers  of  the  first  six  centuries  were 
not  Catholics?  Here  are  positive  statements  of 
the  Christian  belief  of  the  Eucharist  in  their 
days.  Was  it  the  Protestant  belief  ?  Mere  fig- 
ure ;  mere  bread  and  wine  ?  Let  any  sensible 
Protestant  reader  compare  these  testimonies  with 
what  his  minister  tells  him  of  the  bread  and  wine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  ask  himself  in  the  pre- 
sence of  God,  whether  the  Protestant  doctrine  is 
not  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of  the  Fathers 
of  the  first  six  centuries  ? 

Under  the  third  head,  you  bring  up  the  objec- 
tion  of  reason  and  the  senses.     But  the  example 


256 


of  the  Jews  at  Capernaum,  of  the  Socinians,  and 
Deists  among  ourselves  should  teach  you,  that  in 
the  mysteries  of  the  Christian  Revelation  these  are 
but  sorry  guides.  We  may  reason  on  the  ques- 
tion whether  a  mystery  has  been  revealed  ;  and 
if  the  evidence  be  sufficient,  to  convince  us  that 
it  has,-  then  we  believe.  By  reason  you  can- 
not understand  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity. 
By  the  senses  you  can  discover  nothing  of 
the  Saviour's  divinity,  when,  hanging  on  the 
cross  he  cried  out,  "  My  God,  my  God  !  Why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me."  But  this  mode  "of 
attacking  a  mystery  is  sufficiently  exemplified  in 
the  introduction.  The  Presbyterian  selects  one 
dogma  ;  the  Unitarian  another  ;  the  Universalist 
a  third ;  but  all  work  with  the  same  iveapons. 
When  you  deny  that  the  "  real  presence"  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  under  the  forms  and  appearances, 
length,  breadth,  thickness,  and  all  the  external 
properties  of  a  dove,  is  a  parallel  case  with 
"  the  real  presence"  of  Jesus  Christ,  under  the 
forms  and  appearances  of  bread  and  wine  you 
affect  to  discover  a  difference  which  but  few 
minds,  except  your  own,  can  perceive.  The 
ground,  it  seems,  of  this  difference  is  that  Christ, 
" as  man,"  cannot  (what!)  be  present  on  the 
earth ;  "  he  is  seated  on  his  throne  in  heaven." 
But  have  you  forgotten  that,  notwithstanding  all 
this,  he  appeared  to  St.  Paul  on  his  way  to  Da- 
mascus'? If  you  have,  I  refer  you  to  Acts  ix.  17. 
Christ  did  not  cease  to  be  on  his  throne,  by  ap- 
pearing to  St.  Paul  on  the  way;  therefore  hie 
body  can  be  in  two  places  at  once,  and  if  in  two, 
so  in  a  million  of  places,  and  yet  be  at  the  right 
hand.  His  body  is  spiritual,  that  is,  endowed 
with  the  properties  of  a  spirit.  Can  you  tell 
what  those  are  1  Can  you  say  that  such  a  body 
cannot  exist  under  the  appearances  of  bread  and 
wine  1  When  the  Deist  retorts  your  argument, 
against  the  Bible  itself,  what  will  you  have  to 
reply  T  When  you  tell  him  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended  in  the  form  of  a  dove ;  "  what !  he 
will  exclaim,"  that  there  should  be  a  long,  broad, 
thick,  white,  heavy,  moist,  active,  passive,  feath- 
ered flying,  nothing  ,■  and  that  this  strange  some- 
thing nothing,  seeming;  dove,  and  not  a  dove, 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  yet  seeming  a  dove,  should 
descend  on  a  man  in  the  Jordan,  and  yet  be  living 
in  heaven  entire  and  quiescent,  while  all  this  is 
going  on  upon  earth,  is,  I  say,  an  infinite  absur- 
dity. Pardon  me,  Sir,  he  will  continue,  the  ex- 
pression seems  harsh,  and  the  objection  savours 
of  levity,  ridicule,  and,  as  you  Christians  would 
say,  blasphemy :  but  to  the  honour  of  Deism,  I 
must  inform  you  that  I  learned  it  from  a  Christian 
minister.  It  is  your  own,  extracted  literally 
from  your  Letter  No.  XXX.  on  "  Transubstantia- 
tion."  How  will  you  meet  this  Deist?  Will 
you  have  the  eourage  to  destroy  your  own  child  ? 
And  if  you  would,  will  you  have  the  power  ? 
Has  not  the  press  made  it  immortal  ?  And  if 
you  disown  it,  will  it  not  be  adopted  by  the 
Deists,  and  arrayed  against  its  Christian  parent- 
age. 

When  you  call  Transubstantiation  a  miracle, 
and  institute  a  parallel  between  it  and  the  miracles 


which  prove  the  truth  of  Christianity,  do  you  not 
grossly  (I  will  not  say  intentionally)  deceive  your 
readers  ?  These  being  intended  as  proofs  were 
addressed  to  the  senses.  The  miracle  of  the 
Eucharist  is  like  the  miracle  of  the  Incarnation, 
acknowledged  by  faith,  made  known,  not  by 
taste,  hearing,  sight,  smell,  or  touch,  but  by  the 
Revelation  of  Jesus'  Christ.  Hence  the  Jews  are 
reproached  by  him  because  they  would  not  believe, 
and  the  Protestants  do  not  believe.  But  the  Apos- 
tles believed,  the  apostolic  Fathers  believed,  the 
Catholic  church,  of  whose  faith  they  are  witness- 
es, believed,  and  believes.  So  that  when  you  say 
"  Hume  cannot  be  confuted,  if  Transubstantiation 
be  true,"  you  impose  grossly  (without  intending 
it,  I  hope)  upon  the  ignorance  of  Protestant  read- 
ers. Christ  proposed  a  mystery,  and  you  wish  to 
prove  by  your  senses,  that  he  does  not  deceive  !  !  ! 
Catholics  are  not  so  distrustful.  Jesus  Christ  has 
said  so,  that  is  enough.  The  true,  real  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  exist  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, not  in  the  natural  manner  in  which  they  ex- 
isted on  the  cross,  but  in  the  spiritual,  supernatu- 
ral manner  in  which  they  existed,  when  they  were 
given  at  the  last  supper,  or  when  they  entered  the 
room  where  the  disciples  were,  the  doors  being 
closed.  (John  xx.  19.)  He  said  to  Thomas,  "  a 
spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye  see  me  to 
have."  Yet  we  find  that  he,  having  "flesh  and 
bones"  which  were  touched  by  St.  Thomas,  en- 
tered an  apartment,  the  doors  being  closed  !  How 
could  an  entrance  into  a  closed  apartment  be  ef- 
fected by  a  human  body  consisting  of  flesh  and  bones, 
which  all  could  see  and  touch?  The  Bible  states  the 
fact — does  the  philosophy  of  Bacon  and  of  New- 
ton explain  it?  Can  you,  Rev.  Sir,  explain  if? 
Did  Christ's  body  penetrate  through  the  wall,  or 
the  door  ?  Then,  there  were  two  bodies  existing 
in  the  same  space  at  the  same  time  !  Here  then  are 
two  facts  :  1.  That  the  body  of  Christ  was  at  the 
wme  time  in  two  places,  viz.  in  heaven  and  on 
the  way  to  Damascus.  2.  That  the  body  of  Christ 
existed  in  the  same  space  which  was  occupied  by 
the  closed  door  or  wall  through  which  he  entered 
the  apartment,  where  the  disciples  were:  By  both 
of  which  it  is  proved,  that  the  body  of  Christ  is 
not  under  the  government  of  natural  laws,  and 
therefore,  that  your  argument,  founded  on  the  laws 
that  govern  bodies  in  their  natural  condition,  whilst 
it  proves  nothing  against  the  real  and  substantial 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  is  a  flat  con- 
tradiction of  the  Bible,  in  the  two  cases  referred 
to,  and  comes  mal-a-propos  from  an  evangelical 
Protestant.  Neither  is  it  correct  in  philosoph)'. 
For  we  know  nothing  of  space,  abstractedly  from 
the  relations  of  bodies  existing  in  their  natural 
condition,-  nor  of  time,  except  by  the  succession 
of  perceptible  events.  Of  the  manner  therefore, 
in  which  spirits,  or  the  spiritual  body  of  Jesus  Christ, 
are  effected  by  time  and  space,  permit  me  to  say 
that  you  and  we  are  all  equally  and  utterly  igno- 
rant. And  yet  with  a  mind  ignorant  of  what  is 
space — ignorant  of  what  is  time — ignorant  of  the 
relations  which  they  bear  to  the  spiritual  body  of 
Jesus  Christ — ignorant  of  the  properties  of  that 
body,  you  rise  up  against  the  express  and  reiterated 


•557 


declaration  of  the  Saviour,  against  the  doctrine  of 
all  the  Fathers,  and  of  the  whole  christian 
world  before,  and  except  the  Protestants;  and  in 
the  plenitude  of  all  this  ignorance,  you  scan  the. 
attributes  of  the  eternal  God,  circumscribe  the 
ocean  of  Divine  Omnipotence,  by  your  ideas  of 
time  and  space,  and  proclaim  that  the  real  pre- 
sence of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  mystery  of  the 
Eucharist  is  "  an  infinite  absurdity  !  !  !"  Deists, 
Rev.  Sir,  never  made  a  more  arrogant,  perverted, 
or  fallacious  use  of  reason,  than  this  is.  Reason 
knows  nothing  of  these  matters,  except  as  they  are 
revealed;  and  the  haughty  little  blunderer  may 
return  to  its  nut-shell,  convinced  of  its  own  impo- 
tence, and  satisfied  that  the  son  of  God  would  not 
have  required  of  us  to  believe  any  thing  which  is 
absurd.  So  much  for  the  dcistical  objection  of 
reason  and  the  senses. 

Under  this  head  also,  you  introduced  the  silence 
of  the  enemies  of  Christianity  in  the  primitive 
church  ;  having  nothing  to  hope  from  the  Fathers, 
said,  on  the  subject,  you  expect  something  from 
what  the  Jews,  Pagans,  and  apostate  Christians  did 
not  say.  "  Celsus,  Porphyry,  Lucian,  Julian  and 
Trypho,  would  have  written  (as  Protestant  min- 
isters do)  against  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  real 
presence,  if  it  had  been  believed  in  their  time  as  it 
is  now  in  the  Catholic  Church."  Answer.  1. 
The  knowledge  of  the  Christian  mysteries,  and  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments  was  inviolably 
concealed  from  Jews  and  Pagans  by  the  "discipline 
of  the  secret,"  for  an  account  of  which  you  may 
consult  Bingham  and  Mosheim,  though  they 
are  not  the  best  authority.  2.  I  have  proved  al- 
ready from  the  Fathers,  that  the  belief  of  Christ's 
real  flesh  in  the  Eucharist  did  exist.  3.  The 
charge  made  against  the  Christians  of  "murdering 
a  child,  and  eating  its  flesh  in  their  secret  assemblies,'''' 
proves  that  the  Jews  and  Pagans  had  a  confused 
vague  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist. 
4.  With  regard  to  Julian  the  apostate,  we  cannot 
know  whether  he  wrote  against  the  doctrine  or 
not,  since  his  theological  works  have  been  lost.  St. 
Cyril  in  his  preface  tells  us,  that  he  had  written 
three  books  against  the  Christians.  Of  the  con- 
tents of  them  we  know  nothing,  except  a  part  of 
one  to  which  Cyril  replied.  Who  knows  then, 
that  in  the  others  he  did  not  prove  himself  a 
sound  Protestant  by  attacking  the  Eucharist,  and 
pronouncing  it  an  "  infinite  absurdity  V  Itis  like 
his  language. 

The  IV.  head  is  on  the  origin  of  the  doctrine. 
Here  you  deny  having  asserted  "that  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation  was  not  held'.before  the  year  1215." 
I  am  glad  to  see  you  deny  your  assertions,  but  it 
would  be  more  magnanimous  to  recall  them  and 
acknowledge  that  you  were  mistaken.  But  the 
matter  has  been  already  sufficiently  disposed  of, 
in  the  introduction. 

V.  Head  you  ask  "  how  we  can  discern  the 
body  and  blood  after  consecration  V  I  answer 
hy  faith.  By  believing  with  St.  Augustine  that 
«  it  is  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  in  which  he  suffered.^'' 
and  with  St.  Ignatius  that  it  is  "  the  flesh  of  Jesus 
Christ, "  with  St.  Chrysostom  that  "what  is  in  the 
chalice   is  what  flow ed  from  his  side,"  and    with 


Christ  himself  that  itis  "his  body  and  blood.'''' 
And  now  I  ask  you  how  can  Protestants  discern 
it  at  all?  Since  they  will  not  allow  even  faith  to 
believe  that  the  "body  of  the  Lord"  is  there. 
Would  St.  Paul  require  the  Corinthians  to  dis- 
cern the  body  of  the  Lord  in  the  sacrament,  if  the 
body  of  the  Lord  were  not  really  and  truly  there, 
though  in  a  supernatural  manner,  impervious  to 
the  senses?     No,  certainly. 

You  ask,  "does  not  this  pretended  miracle  de- 
grade Christ's  humanity,  and  deify  the  operating 
Priest?"  I  answer  first,  that  it  is  a  miracle, 
which  faith  alone  can  appreciate,  and  that  your  lan- 
guage is  a  gross  imposition  on  the  ignorance  of  Pro- 
testants, when  you  speak  of  it  as  a  miracle  for  the 
senses  to  judge  of.  Is  this  intentional  1  and  if  it 
be,  is  it  honest  ? 

\  answer  secondly,  that  the  priest  offering  "  the 
sacrifice,"  acts  as  the  minister  and  by  the  authority 
of  Jesus  Christ — just  as  you  profess  to  do,  when 
you  preach  the  Gospel.  Is  this  "  deifying"  either 
the  priest  or  the  parson?  Can  you  be  serious  when 
you  employ  such  expressions  ?  I  answer  thirdly, 
that  so  far  from  degrading  the  Catholic  doctrine  of 
the  Eucharist,  glorifies,  the  Saviour's  humanity, 
and  the  Saviour  himself.  Because  we  believe  in 
his  veracity  when  he  said  "this  is  my  body,"  and 
the  flesh  which  the  Jews  seeing  scourged  and  spit 
upon,  that  same  the  Catholics  adore  without  see- 
ing— as  if  to  atone  for  the  insults. 

VI.  Head.  Under  this  ycu  make  a  difficulty 
respecting  the  priest's  "  intention."  To  this  I 
reply  that  there  is  no  ground  to  suppose,  that  a 
priest  who  administers  a  sacrament  should  have 
the  intention  not  to  administer.  In  heaven  or  on 
earth,  in  time  or  in  eternity,  there  is  no  motive  for 
him  to  withhold  his  intention,  and  deliberate 
wicked  actions  without  any  motive  or  inducement, 
are  not  to  be  presumed.  The  Presbytery  that  or- 
dains a  Calvinistic  minister,  f;oi/ /(/constitute  there- 
by a  real  minister  if  it  depended  on  intention,  and 
whenever  we  say  that  it  does  not,  we  predicate 
on  the  absence,  not  of  intention,  but  of  power. 
The  Presbytery  cannot  give,  what  it  does  not 
possess — however  much  it  may  intend  it. 

VII.  And  last  head.  Here  you  affect  to  be 
amused  at  my  claiming  the  ancient  Liturgies  as 
teaching  (the  doctrine  of)  Transubstantiation, 
and  venture  to  assert  that  there  is  not  one  word 
of  truth  in  all  I  have  said  on  that  subject."  I 
must  say  that  you  never  "  ventured"  on  a  more 
hazardous  experiment  in  your  life — the  appeal  to 
the  Fathers  not  excepted.  I  have  not  room  here 
to  quote  the  words  of  those  liturgies.  But  at  a 
proper  time  I  shall  lay  them  before  the  public, 
and  let  Protestants  see  with  their  own  eyes, 
how  grossly  they  are  imposed  upon,  when  they  are 
told,  that  before  Luther  there  ever  were  Christians 
that  believed  as  they  do.  In  the  mean  time  I 
shall  mention  two  facts  which  will  show  how  little 
of  Protestantism  is  :'.n  these  Liturgies. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  the 
Duke  of  Saxony  had  been  persuaded  that  Pro- 
testantism, vainly  sought  for  in  the  primitive 
Church,  was  to  be  found  abundantly  in  the  an- 
cient liturgies  of  the  heretics  in  the  east.     Ac- 


258 


eordingly  he  sent  an  eminent  oriental  scholar, 
John  Michael  Vensleb  to  examine.  This  exami- 
nation resulted  in  his  conversion  to  the  Catho- 
lic faith.  Afterwards,  he  travelled  in  the  east, 
and  procured  no  less  than  five  hundred  manu- 
scripts for  the  French  King's  Library.  One  of 
these,  the  Liturgy  of  Dioscorus,  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  was  published  in  London  in  1661. 
He  had  been  the  pupil  of  the  celebrated  oriental 
scholar,  Ludolf.  A  similar  discovery  in  the  ex- 
amination of  the  Eastern  Liturgies,  caused  the 
conversion  to  the  Catholic  faith  of  Vigne,  a 
Calvinistic  minister  of  Grenoble,  about  the  same 
time.  (Le.  Brun  vol.  4.  p.  467.)  These  two  facts 
are  ample  proof,  that  on  the  Eucharist  all  the 
liturgies  of  the  east  and  west,  teach  the  real  pre- 
sence by  the  change  of  the  bread  and  wine  into 
the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  I  shall 
make  appear  at  large. 

I  have  now  answered  the  arguments  of  your 
letter  to  the  satisfaction,  I  trust,  of  the  public,  if 
not  of  its  author.  Did  the  Fathers,  up  to  St. 
Ignatius,  in  the  very  age  of  the  Apostles,  hold, 
or  did  they  not,  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
real  presence  of  the  glorified  body  of  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist]  If 
they  did  not,  then  take  up,  one  after  the 
other,  the  passages  I  have  quoted,  and  tell  us 
what  they  mean.  If  they  did— then  Catholics 
are  right,  and  Protestants  are  wrong,  on  your  own 
admission,  for  you  claimed  the  ^Fathers,  and 
professed  yourself  ready  "  to  meet  me  at  all 
points."  If  then  the  Fathers,  up  to  the  apostolic 
age,  held  the  true  3octrine,  does  it  not  follow  that 
Protestants  have  been  led  to  forsake  the  faith 
of  Jesus  Christ  ]     Let  them  reflect  on  it. 

I  have  no  objection  to  the  compliments  which 
you  pay  to  the  great  men  of  the  Episcopal 
Church.  But  you  might  have  left  the  name  of 
"  Usher"  out,  and  substituted  those  of  Drs.  Bow- 
en  and  Cooke,  of  Kentucky,  and  of  Mr.  Briton, 
of  New  York,  who  have  so  triumphantly  vindi- 
cated, at  least,  one  article  of  Catholic  belief 
against  the  errors  of  Presbyterianism.  These 
names  I  know  are  not  in  good  odour  at  Princeton, 
but  their  triumph  is  not  the  less  complete  on  that 
account. 

The  Bookseller  who  was  forbidden  to  keep  my 
review  of  Bishop  Onderdonk's  Charge  for  sale,  is 
the  Agent  of  the  Baptist  Tract  Depository,  and 
my  informant  is  Mr.  Fithian,  whose  note  see 
below.  Now  I  shall  answer  your  questions  bv 
number. 
To  the  1.  I  say  that  Pope  Liberius  did  not 


sign  the  Arian  Creed  in  the  Arian  sense  or  mean- 
ing. 

To  the  2d.  that  no  council,  recognized  by 
the  Catholic  Church,  ever  "  adopted,"  the  Arian 
Creed.  For  the  errors  of  other  councils,  or 
general  assemblies,  the  Church  is  not  accounta- 
ble. 

To  the  3d.  I  reply,  I  have  answered  it  already, 
the  VI.  head.  J 

To  the  4th.  compound  question,  I  answer  1st, 
that  there  were  pretenders  to  the  see  of  Rome, 
besides  the  rightful  occupant,  and  in  this  sense 
there  were  schism  in  the  Popedom— 2,  that  Ca- 
tholics have  no  difficulty  in  knowing  who  was 
the  true  Pope,  and  3,  that  a  false  pope  is  no 
pope. 

To  the  5th.  about  the  freedom  of  the  press  at 
Rome,  and  the  "  Prohibiting  Committee"  which 
you  are  pleased  to  imagine  for  the  benefit  of  "  all 
the  Church,"  I  answer,  that  the  latter  does  not  ex- 
ist, and  the  former  is  a  question  on  which  every 
man  may  abound  in  his  own  sense. 

To  the  6th.  I  answer,  that  money  given  to  a 
priest  for  any  sacred  function  is  not  given,  and 
cannot  lawfully  be  received  as  an  equivalent,  but 
either  as  alms,  deeds,  or  for  support,  on  the 
principle  that  they  who  serve  at  the  altar  should 
live  by  the  altar. 

To  the  7th.  I  answer,  that  in  my  opinion,  reli- 
gion and  science  suffered  by  the  suppression 
ot  the  Jesuits,  and  that  both  are  gainers  by  their 
restoration.  This  opinion  is  founded  on  the  fact 
that  they  are  hated  for  their  zeal,  and  admired 
for  their  learning  by  all  the  infidels  in  Europe. 
As  to  the  Inquisition,  it  may  have  been  a  good 
thing — abused. 

To  the  8th.  and  last,  I  answer  that  so  far  as 
the  traditions  of  the  Jewish  Church  had  reference 
to  the  ceremonial  law,  they  expired  with  it.  So 
far  as  they  regarded  proof  of  Jewish  faith  before 
the  coming  of  Christ,  I  do  not  reject  them. 
Yours,  &c. 

John  Hughes. 

As  the  publisher  of  "the  Review"  I  supplied  a 
number  of  Booksellers  with  it  on  commission 
among  others,  the  Depository  of  the  Baptist 
Tract  Depository.  As  I  was  personally  acquainted 
with  them  generally  1  called  in  occasionally  to 
inquire  if  I  should  send  more,  &c.  and  was  inform- 
ed by  the  Assistant  Agent  that  the  number  which 
I  had  sent  them  was  all  sold  but  orders  had  been 
been  given  him  not  to  receive  and  offer  for  sale  any 
more-  M.  Fithian. 


CONTROVERSY,. ...N°.  32. 


Is  the  Protectant  Religion  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  September  1th,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  produced  the  distinct 
testimony  of  three  several  Roman  Catholic  histo- 
rians, in  support  of  my  charges  against  the  infa- 
mous lives  of  the  clergy  and  Popes  of  Rome. 
This  was  done  in  answer  to  your  challenge,  to 
the  following  effect,  viz.  "  Name  the  page  of 
the  Catholic  historian  who  states  what  you  have 
asserted,  and  I  pledge  myself  again  to  expose 
2/ow."  (Letter  No.  XXIX.)  And  now  when  these 
connecting  authorities  are  adduced,  how  do  you 
meet  them  ? 

Thuanus  you  reject,  saying  that  he  was  twice 
condemned  at  Rome  by  public  decrees,  in  1609 
and  1757.  .  Were  these  decrees  issued  by  Gene- 
ral Councils,  approved  by  Popes?  If -not,  they 
are  of  no  weight  in  this  question.  But  they  were 
not,  for  the  last  Council  (that  of  Trent)  sat  more 
than  fifty  years  before  the  first  of  these  dates  1 
How  then  can  you  say  that  he  is  not  a  Catholic 
historian  ?  Does  the  Church  condemn  him  1 
Has  he  not  written  the  truth?  Yes;  and  it  is 
for  this  that  you  reject  him,  as  you  did  Bellarmine 
when  his  testimony  became  insupportable,  though 
you  informed  me  once,  that  he  was  a  standard 
writer  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  Dupin  was  my 
second  witness.  You  answer,  "we  disown  him!" 
So  you  do  the  Bible,  as  a  rule  of  faith  ;  and  for 
the  same  reason,  that  it  does  not  teach  Romanism, 
if  left  to  speak  for  itself .  Dupin  not  a  "Catho- 
lic historian  !"  And  why  ?  Because  he  does 
not  deny  or  conceal  the  corruptions  of  Popes, 
Prelates  and  Priests.  "  He  is  your  enemy  be- 
cause he  tells  you  the  truth."  This  a  summary 
method  of  disposing  of  an  author;  not  forsooth, 
because  what  he  says  is  proved  to  be  false,-  but 
because  he  condemns  the  party  whose  history  lie 
writes,  and  because  the  condemned  party  finds 
fault  with  him  for  doing  it. 

But  you  are  forced  to  own   that  my  third  wit- 
ness, Baronius  "  is  a  Catholic  historian." 
Here  then  we  join  issue. 

On  this  reference,  you  speak  so  unlike  a  gospel 
minister,  or  christian  gentleman,  that  I  assure  you 
I  feel  ashamed  to  be  dragged  before  the  commu- 
nity in  such  company.  After  language  which 
shows  a  desperate  and  infatuated  state  of  mind, 
you  propose  the  following  extraordinary  course — 
"  To  put  the  matter  to  rest,  I  shall  mark  the 
pages,  and  leave  two  copies  of  Baronius,  one  in 
Latin,  the  other  in  Italian,  at  the  Athenaeum  on 
Thursday  morning,  together  with  a  copy  of  your 
letter  for  the  curious  to  compare  the  one  with  the 
other.  The  public  will  then  see  which  of  us  is 
to  be  exposed." 


From  such  a  trial  I  shrink  not,  except  for  the  in- 
decent coarseness  and  vulgarity  with  which  it  is 
proposed  to  be  made,  and  at  which  every  honour- 
able mind  must  revolt.  The  volume  and  my 
friend  were  at  the  Athenaeum  at  the  appointed  hour; 
and  by  referring  to  the  Postcript  you  will  see  that 
lam  fully  prepared  to  meet  you  at  "  all  points. " 
But  the  passage  in  Baronius  to  which  I  referred 
you,  was  only  only  one  of  a  hundred  furnished  by 
this  "  Catholic  historian. "  He  relates,  for  ex- 
ample, that  Pope  Alexander  VI.,  A.  D.  1492, 
(see  Baronius'  Annals,  Vol.  19,  p.  413  et  seq.) 
was  elected  by  Cardinals,  some  of  whom  were 
bribed,  some  allured  by  promises  of  promotion, 
and  some  enticed  by  fellowship  in  his  vices  and 
impurities,  to  give  him  their  suffrages.  He  re- 
fers to  various  authors  who  complained  that  he 
was  (insignem  stupris)  famous  for  his  debauche- 
ry; he  tells  us  of  his  vile  example  (pessimo  ex- 
emplo)  in  keeping(pellicem  Romanam  Vanoziam) 
a  Roman  strumpet  Vanozia,  by  whom  he  had 
many  children ;  that  he  conferred  wealth  and 
honours  on  them,  and  even  created  one  of  them, 
Caesar  Borgia,  (an  inordinately  wicked  man,) 
archbishop  of  the  church.  The  same  writer 
(Vol.  11th.  p.  145,  &c.)  records  the  election  of 
Benedict  the  9th,  at  the  age  of  twelve  yearsr 
which  he  says  was  accomplished  by  gold,  and  he 
calls  it  ("  horrendum  ac  detestabile  visu")  "hor- 
rible and  detestable  to  behold:"  yet  he  adds  that 
the  whole  christian  world  acknowledged  Bene- 
dict, without  controversy,  to  be  a  true  Pope. 
This  man  he  represents  as  a  monster  of  iniquity, 
and  relates,  that  after  death  he  appeared  to  a  cer- 
tain Vaclus  in  a  hideous  shape,  and  informed  him 
that  he  was  doomed  to  everlasting  woe  ! 

Once  more:  the  same  author  (vol.  10.  pp.  742, 
3.)  informs  us  at  large  of  the  villanies  and  infa- 
mous conduct  of  the  notorious  Pope  Stephen  the 
7th.  The  following  sentence  conveys  the  history 
of  his  unparalleled  wickedness  in  a  sirTgle  line. 
Ita  quidem  passus  facinorosus  homo  quique  ut 
fur  et  latro  ingressus  est  in  ovile  ovium,  laqueo 
vitam  adeo  infami  exitu  vindice  Deo  clausit. 
"  Thus  perished  this  villanous  man,  who  entered 
the  sheep-fold  as  a  thief  and  a  robber;  and  who 
in '  the  retribution  of  God,  ended  his  days  by 
the  infamous  death  of  the  halter."  There  have 
been  probably  not  less  than  two  hundred  Popes 
whose  lives  furnish  in  a  greater  or  less  degree 
confirmation  of  the  charges  which  I  have  already 
made.  There  is  not  in  the  history  of  human 
crime  such  a  catalogue  as  is  furnished  by  the 
lives  of  the  Popes.  No  list  of  Mahommedan  or 
I  Syracusan  tyrants — no  annals  of  human  barbarity, 
1  debauch,  and  infamy — no  history  of  any  age  or 


2G© 


any  people  furnish  such  a  picture  of  depravity. 
Let  any  reader  consult  Baronius,  or  Boyer,  or  Du- 
pin,  or  Thuanus,  or  even  the  popular  Encyclope- 
dias of  the  day,  and  he  will  find  our  description 
abundantly  sustained.  When,  therefore,  you  speak 
of  "Magdalen  Reports,"  and  refer  to  the  history 
of  crime  in  our  country,  remember,  that  the  infa- 
mous women  of  whom  you  speak  are  not  Protes- 
tants ;  and  that  it  is  the  Protestant  church  which 
is  seeking  their  reform;  while  on  the  other  hand 
the  history  which  I  have  given  above,  is  the  his- 
tory not  only  of  your  Priesthood,  but  of  your 
Popes, 

I.  Your  defence  of  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy, 
carries  its  own  exposure  with  it.  You  say  "  as 
to  the  charge  that  the  Catholic  church  forbids 
marriage,  it  is  untrue."  But  in  the  next  sentence 
you  own,  that  "  the  law  of  her  Priesthood  enjoins 
celibacy  and  chastity,  but  no  one  is  compelled  to 
enter  into  the  ministry  of  her  sanctuary."  But 
pray  who  authorized  her  to  make  a  law  enjoining 
celibacy  on  the  Priesthood  1  The  Bible  says 
"marriage  is  honourable  in  a//;"  but  the  church 
of  Rome  says  it  is  not  honourable  in  the  Priest- 
hood. The  Bible  confers  on  Bishops,  in  so  many 
words,  the  privilege  of  marriage;  whereas  the 
church  of  Rome  in  so  many  words  forbids  it,  and 
anathematizes  those  who  dissent  from  her.  This 
is  what  I  call  "  fighting  against  God;"  it  is  in 
fact  nothing  less  than  cursing  God.  If,  as  you  say, 
"  no  man  is  compelled  to  enter  the  ministry"  in 
your  church  (which  however  is  far  from  the  truth 
in  Spain,  Italy,  &c.)  yet  do  you  not  compel  those 
whom  God  may  call  into  the  ministry,  to  abandon 
their  families  or  else  stay  out  of  the  Priesthood  1 
And  I  ask  is  not  this  tyranny  ;  is  not  this  the  most 
daring  species  of  oppression  and  rebellion  against 
God  1  Your  defence  of  Bellarmine  is  a  full  ex- 
emplification of  the  spirit,  and  corrupt  principles 
of  the  Jesuits.  Bellarmine  as  cited  by  me  con- 
tends "  that  it  is  a  greater  evil  to  marry  under  the 
vow  of  celibacy  than  to  commit  fornication;"  you 
say  that  "  under  such  a  vow,  marriage  is  essential- 
ly null  and  void ;"  and  you  ask  "  whether  an  act 
of  conjugal  infidelity  in  a  married  person  is  as 
great  a  sin  as  polygamy  V  Bellarmine's  reason 
for  his  opinion  is  that  one  who  is  married  after  a 
vow  of  celibacy  is  incapable,  for  the  future  of 
of  keeping  the  vow  ,  whereas  one  who  commits 
fornication  may  quit  it  and  return  to  his  vow.  Now 
on  your  p/inciples,  as  marriage  under  a  vow  is 
"null  and  void,"  it  follows  that  the  wife  may  as 
properly  be  forsaken  as  \X\e  mistress ;  therefore 
Bellarmine's  reason  can  have  no  weight.  And 
then  we  are  brought  to  this,  that  a  Priest  who  can- 
not or  will  not  keep  his  vow  of  celibacy,  had  bet- 
ter keep  a  mistress  than  get  a  wife  !  This  is  the 
reasoning,  and  this  the  morality  of  the  Rev.  John 
Hughes  !  Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  then,  that  the 
Priests  of  the  church  of  Rome  are  often  found  to 
he  fathers,  though  theyT  have  no  wives']:  When 
you  charge  our  Confession  of  Faith  with  giving  a 
license  to  commit  sin  (see  Confession  of  Faith  chap. 
24,)  as  it  grants  divorce  in  case  of  adultery,  you 
forget  that  you  condemn  the  Lord  of  Glory,  for  he 
has  said  (Matt.  xix.  9) "  whosoever  shall  put  away 


his  wife,  except  it  be  for  fornication,  and  shall  mar- 
ry another  committeth  adultery."  Here  is  a  full 
warrant  for  divorce  in  the  case  supposed. 

On  the  subject  of  intolerance  and  exclusive  sal- 
vation, you  seem  to  be  conscious  in  your  late  let- 
ter that  your  church  cannot  be  defended ;  and 
your  last,  though  fruitless  effort  is,  to  prove  that 
the  Presbyterian  church  is  as  intolerant  as  your 
own.  But  it  is  a  failure  to  the  extent  of  being 
even  ludicrous.  So  far  from  excluding  other  de- 
nominations of  Christians  from  heaven  we  cherish 
the  hope  that  God  numbers  many  of  his  own 
children  among  those  who  are  subjected  to  the 
despotism  of  the  Pope  ;  but  we  are  free  to  acknow- 
ledge, that  this  hope  almost  "expires  when  we 
reach  the  Priesthood  of  your  church.  The  records 
of  past  ages  and  the  daily  developments  of  the 
present  time,  tell  us  in  a  language  which  we  can- 
not misunderstand,  that  the  clergy  of  your  church, 
taken  as  a  body,  have  been  and  are  the  most  guil- 
ty and  most  dangerous  men  with  whom  this  fallen 
world  has  been  ever  cursed.  You  deny  that  once 
every  year  the  Pope  at  Rome  excommunicates  all 
Protestants,  and  refuses  absolution  to  their  abet- 
tors, harbourers,  readers  of  their  books,  &c.  I 
know  not  whether  most  to  wonder  at  your  assur- 
ance or  your  ignorance.  Cardinal  Tolet  (Istruct. 
sacred,  cap.  20,  32.)  tells  us  with  the  most  co- 
pious distinctness  that  this  is  the  fact.  Can  it 
be  possible  that  you  have  never  seen  or  heard 
of  the  famous  Bulla  Coenae  in  which  the  Pope 
annually  curses  Protestants  as  I  have  said ; 
claims  power  over  kings,  denounces  all  govern- 
ments who  tax  Papists  without  his  consent,  who 
harbour  heretics,  furnish  them  with  arms,  read 
their  books,  &c.  &c.  Strange  that  you  have 
never  heard  of  this  Bull,  though  it  requires  you 
once  a  year  to  publish  it  to  the  faithful ! 

II.  We  next  proceed  to  notice  your  ineffectual 
effort  at  the  defence  of  Transnbstantiation.  You 
struggle  in  the  toils  of  truth  and  self-contra- 
diction in  which  you  have  been  caught,  with  a 
pertinacity  and  desperation  which  would  excite 
compassion  if  you  were  labouring  in  a  better  cause. 
A  brief  notice  of  the  several  particulars  is  all  that 
is  necessary,  for  you  have  met  none  of  my  argu- 
ments, and  as  will  soon,  appear,  have  still  more 
deeply  involved  yourself.  You  attempt  to  prove 
me  guilty  of  contradiction  when  I  admit  that  Ber- 
ringer  was  condemned  for  denying  Transubstan- 
tiation  in  1059,  while  I  say  that  it  was  not  an 
article  of  faith  until  1215.  But  do  you  remem- 
ber that  in  Berringer's  day,  amidst  the  con- 
troversies on  this  disputed  point,  even  the  terms 
in  which  the  parties  expressed  their  opinions 
were  not  fixed'?  Berringer's  first  recantation 
(before  a  c^mcil  in  which  the  majority  held  the 
real  presence)  was  in  such  crude  and  shocking 
language  as  the  following;  "  the  true  body  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  broken  by  the  Priest's  hands, 
and  ground  by  the  teeth  of  the  faithful."  But  the 
party  for  Transubstantiation  afterwards  found  that 
his  recantation  was  worse  than  the  former  Protes- 
tant doctrine  which  he  held;  so  after  many  years 
his  recantation  was  amended ,-  and  he  finally  re- 
turned to  his  first  opinion  and  was  backed  in  it 


36  i 


by  half  the  church.  Any  one  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  the  church  must  know  as  Scotus, 
and  Tonstal,  and  Durand,  and  Erasmus,  &c.  (all 
Roman  Catholic  writers)  infoim  us,  that  until  1215 
it  was  a  disputed  question  sustained  on  each  side 
with  great  warmth,  that  the  church  allowed  her 
members  to  hold  either  side  without  censure  ;  and 
that  even  after  it  was  decreed  in  1215  to  be  a  doc- 
trine which  all  must  believe,  it  was  received  on 
authority  and  not  from  the  Bible.  So  we  are  in- 
formed by  Cajetan,  Scotus,  Durand,  Ocham,  Biel, 
Contarinus,  Melchior,  Cane,  Fisher,  &c.  all  Ro- 
man Catholic  writers.  Bellarmine,  Bruys  and 
Sirmond  tell  us  that  Pascasius  in  the  9th  century 
was  the  first  author  who  expressly  wrote  on  the 
real  presence.  Bertram  answered  him  ;  yet  he 
was  no  heretic  and  for  two  hundred  years  his 
work  was  circulated  and  not  condemned.  This 
said  work  was  revived  after  the  Reformation  in 
support  of  Protestantism  by  the  Reformers. 
After  this,  Cardinals,  the  Pope  and  the  Committee 
of  the  Index  at  Rome  denounced  Bertram's  book; 
yet  Mabbillon  in  1680  proved  beyond  all  doubt 
that  it  was  the  genuine  work  of  Bertram.  Do  not 
such  facts  incontestibly  prove  the  novelty  of  Tran- 
substantiatjon  ;  and  the  antiquity  of  the  Protestant 
doctrine  1 

1.  Your  renewed  attempts  to  derive  this  doc- 
trine from  the  Scripture  grow  worse  and  worse 
at  every  step.  If  you  take  the  words  "  this  is  my 
body"  literally,  why  will  you  not  also  take  literally 
all  the  remaining  words  of  institution,  viz.  "  this 
cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood  ?"  Why 
did  you  not  answer  my  argument  on  this  point? 
Have  you  not  one  word  then  to  say  in  reply  to  all 
that  was  presented  in  my  last  letter  showing  the  ab- 
surdity of  your  interpretation  of  Scripture.  Mustnot 
the  public  and  even  your  own  people  see  and  own 
that  you  abandon  the  Scripture  defence  of  your  doc- 
trine ?  Is  not  the  Bible  against  you  1  When  you 
give  us,  letter  after  letter,  teeming  columns  of  per- 
verted testimonies  from  the  "  Fathers"  and  furnish 
only  a  solitary  line  from  the  word  of  God,  what 
can  such  dearth  of  Scripture  mean  but  that  Scrip- 
ture is  against  you  ! 

2.  As  to  the  Fathers,  even  admitting  that  some 
of  them  are  for  you,  then  by  your  own  rule  of 
faith  as  you  have  not  their  "  unanimous  consent" 
their  proof  is  of  no  value  to  ydii.  This  is  a  point 
of  which  you  are  manifestly  afrrfid,  and  which 
you  have  never  touched  though  presented  to  you 
in  my  letter  No.  1.  In  your  last  letter  you  bare- 
ly say  as  follows:  "The  exceptions  which  you 
profess  to  find,  as  to  the  'unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers' on  the  Catholic  faith  of  the  Eucharist, 
have  as  much  foundation  in  reality,  as 'the  contra- 
dictions which  the  Deist  pretends  to  discover  in 
the  comparison  of  the  four  Gospels.  In  both  cases 
there  are  apparent  disagreements."  If  by  this 
you  mean  to  say  that  the  "  Fathers"  are  as  unani- 
mous as  the  four  Gospels  then  surely  you  ought 
never  atjain  to  speak  evil  of  the  Deist.  Yet  this 
is  all  you  say  in  defence  of  their  unanimity.  I 
have  proved  in  my  last  letter  that  the  Fathers  as 
a  body  rejected  Transubstantiation.  But  to  settle 
this    question  and  give  you  the  opportunity  of 


making  out  their  unanimity  in  support  of  your 
doctrine,  let  me  here  summarily  present  to  you  a 
few  specimens.  If  you  will  reconcile  them  to 
your  doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  then  will  I 
concede  that  the  Fathers  are  yours.  But  until 
you  do,  by  your  own  confession  your  rule  of  faith 
rejects  this  doctrine.  Besides  when  some  of  the 
Fathers  appear  to  agree  with  you  in  calling  the  bread 
the  '■body  and  the  flesh'  of  Christ,  &c.  meaning 
the  sign  of  his  body  and  flesh,  they  can  be  recon- 
ciled to  our  views  ;  but  when  they  call  it  '  a  figure 
of  his  body,'  and  say  *  the  nature  of  bread  still  re- 
mains after  consecration,'  that  '  it  is  wicked  to  say 
we  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ,  &c.  they  cannot  be  re- 
conciled with  your  doctrine.  Therefore  they  either 
contradict  each  other,  or  all  of  them  are  for  us. 

Augustine,  whom  you  claim,  (De  doctrin.  Chris- 
tian, Lib.  3.  cap.  46.)  thus  writes  :  "If  the  say- 
ing be  preceptive,  either  forbidding  a  wicked  ac- 
tion, or  commanding  to  do  that  which  is  good,  it 
is  no  figurative  saying;  but  if  it  seems  to  com- 
mand any  villany  or  wickedness,  or  forbid  what 
is  profitable  and  good,  it  is  figurative.     This  say- 
ing 'except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and 
drink  his  blood  ye  have  no  life  in  you,'  (John  vi. 
53.)  seems   to    command    a   wicked   or    villu?tous 
thing;  it  is  therefore  a   figure,   enjoining  us  to 
communicate   in    the  passion  of  our  Lord  ;  and  to 
lay  it  up  in  dear  and  profitable  remembrance,  that 
his    flesh   was   crucified    and    wounded    for    our 
sakes."     Chrysostom  (Epis.  ad.  Caesarium  Mo- 
nachum.)  says,  "Christ   is  both   God  and  man: 
God,  for  that  he  cannot  suffer;  man,  for  that  he 
suffered.     One  Son,  one   Lord,  he  the  same  with- 
out doubt,   having    one  dominion,   one  power  of 
two  natures ,■  not  that  these   natures  are   consub- 
stantial,  seeing  each  of  them  does  retain,  without 
confusion  its  own  properties,  and  being  two  are  not 
confused  in  Him.     For  as  (in  the  Eucharist)  be- 
fore the  bread  is  consecrated,  we  call   it  bread  ; 
but  when  the  grace  of  God  by  the  Priest  has  con- 
secrated it,  it  has   no  longer  the  name   of  bread, 
but  is  counted   worthy  to  be  called  the  Lord's 
body,  although  the  nature  of  bread  remains  in  it, 
and  we  do  not  say  that  there  are  two  bodies,  but 
one  body  of  the  Son  :  so  here,  the  divine  nature 
being  joined  to  the  (human)  body,  they  both  to- 
gether make  one  Son,   one  person  ;  but  yet  they 
must  be  acknowledged  to  remain   without  confu- 
sion, and  after  an  indivisible   manner,  not  in  one 
nature  only,  but  in  two  perfect  natures." 

The  Eutychians,  against  whom  this  Father 
wrote,  denied  that  Christ  had  two  natures,  that  is, 
that  he  was  truly  a  man  and  truly  God  also. 
Now  he  uses  [the  example  of  the  Eucharist  to 
illustrate  the  two  natures  of  Christ ;  and  argues, 
that  though  "the  nature  of  the  bread  remains  the 
same"  after  consecration,  and  the  nature  of 
Christ's  body  in  Heaven  remains  the  same,  yet 
they  are  both  called  his  body  ;  so  the  manhood  of 
Christ  and  the  Godhead  of  Christ  remain  each 
unchanged,  though  they  are  both  together  called 
one  Son  of  God.  What  he  says  would  be  inap- 
plicable and  absurd,  if  the  bread  be  really  changed 
into  the  body  bf  Christ.  Tertullian  (Adv.  Mar- 
cion.  L.  4.  c.  40,)  says,  "  Christ  taking  the  bread 


902 


and  distributing  it  to  his  disciples,  made  it  his 
body,  saying-,  this  is  my  body,  i.  e.  this  is  the 
figure  of  my  body  !     Now  it  would  not  have  been 
■a.  figure  or    representation    of   Christ's  body,   if 
Christ's  body  had  not  been  a  true  and  real  body." 
Marcion,  against  whom  Tertullian  wrote,  denied 
that  Christ  had  a  true  body,  and  held,  that  it  was 
one   only  in  appearance.     Tertullian  proves  that 
he  had  a  real  body,  in  the  above  passage  by  show- 
ing that  the  bread  in  the  Eucharist  was  a  figure 
of   his  body,  and  the   argument  was   this  :    how 
could   a   phantasm  or  shadow  which  was  not  a 
real  body,   have  a  figure  to  represent  it  ?     Now 
suppose  Tertullian  to  have  believed  the  doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation,  then  his  argument  would 
have  been  in  the  highest  degree  absurd.     Nay, 
Marcion  might  have  turned  it  directly  against  him  ; 
for  he  would  have  retorted   thus  :  "  You  say  that 
the  accidents  and  appearance  of  bread  subsist  in 
the  Sacrament   without    the  substance   of   bread. 
Why  then  could  not  the  accidents  and  appearance 
of  a  body  subsist  in  Christ  without  the  substance 
of  a  body?"     There   could  not   be    therefore   a 
stronger  proof  that  Tertullian  rejected  Transub- 
stantiation.    Epiphanius,   (In    Anchorat.)    "  We 
see    that  our   Saviour   took   in  his  hands,  (viz: 
bread,)  and  having  given  thanks,  said,  this  is  mine, 
and  that;  and  yet  we  see,  that  it  is  not  equal  to 
it  nor  like  it ;  not  to  the  incarnate  image,  not  to 
the  invisible  Deity,  not  to  the  lineaments  of  mem- 
bers ;   for  this  (the  bread)  is  of  a  round  form,  and 
insensible  as  to  any  power."     Once  more  ;  Augus- 
tine,   (De    utilit.     Pcenitentiae    Cap.    1.)      "The 
Apostle  says  that  our  fathers,  not  the  fathers  of 
unbelievers,  not  the  fathers  of  the  wicked  that  did 
eat  and  die,  but  our  fathers,  the  fathers  of  the  faith- 
ful, did  eat  spiritual  meat  and  therefore  the  same, 
(with  us.)     For  there  were  such  there,  to  whom 
Christ  was  more  tasteful  in  their  heart  than  man- 
na in  their  mouth.     Whosoever  understood  Christ 
in  the  manna  did   eat  the  same  spiritual  meat  we 
do.  -  So   also  the  same  drink,  for  the  rock  was 
Christ.     Therefore  they  drank  the  same  drink  we 
do,  but  spiritual  drink,   that  is  drink  which  was 
received  by  faith,  not  what  was  swallowed  down 
the  body..    They  ate   therefore  the    same  meat, 
the  same  to  those  that  understand   and  believe  ; 
but  to  them  that  do  not  understand,  it  was  only 
that   manna,   only  that   w)afer."     And  just  after 
this  he  says,  "  it  is  the  same  Christ,  though  un- 
der the  different  form  of  words,  '  Christ  to  come,"1 
or  that  has  come;"  (Venturus,  etvenit;  diversa 
verba  sunt,  sed  idem  Christus.)     Here  it  is  mani- 
fest that  this  Father  did  not  believe  in  Transub- 
stantiation.    In  explaining  the  Apostle's  declara- 
tion in  1  Cor.  x.  3-4.  as  to  the  manna  and  the 
water  in  the  wilderness,  he  tells  us  "  that  our  fa- 
thers did  spiritually  eat  and  drink  of  the  same 
Christ  with  ourselves  ;"   but  if  our  eating  now  be 
Christ's  natural  body,  then  their  meat  and  ours 
was  not  the  same ;  for  as  Christ  had  not  then  taken 
flesh  upon  him,  those  fathers  in  the  wilderness 
could  not  have  eaten  it  in  a  carnal  sense.     This 
is  made  more  obvious  by  his  Tract  45,  in  John, 
where  he  says,  "  the  signs  are  varied,  faith  re- 
maining the  same.     There  the  rock  was  Christ; 


to  us  that  which  was  laid  on  the  altar  is  Christ  ■ 
and  they  drank  of  the  water  that  flowed  from  the 
rock  for  a  great,  Sacrament  of  the  same  Christ  • 
and  what  we  drink  the  faithful  knew.     If  you  re- 
gard the  visible  species  it  is  another  thing ;  if  the 
vntelhgiblc  signification,  they  drank  the  same  spi- 
ritual  drink."     If  this  be  not    good   Protestant 
doctrine,  I  know  not  what  is.     The  usages  also 
of  the  Fathers  show  in  the  most  striking   light 
that   they   did   not  believe  in  the  real  presence. 
Anciently  it  was  the  custom  to  give  what  remain- 
ed of  the  consecrated   bread  to  little  children  for 
food  ;  sometimes  they  burned  it  in  the  fire  ;  they 
even  made  plasters  of  it  for  the   sick ;  they  sent 
it  from  one  to  another  as  a  token  of  communion ; 
and   they  sometimes  mixed  the  consecrated  wine 
with  ink  for  writing  things  of  importance.     Does 
this  look  like  the  real  body  and  the  real  blood  of 
Christ  ?     Could  the  Fathers  thus  sacrilegiously 
treat  the  Son   of  God  ?     Impossible  !     It  is  clear 
that  they  held  no  such  belief  as  yours.     How  un- 
like this  were  these  usages  to  those  of  the  present 
Church   of  Rome.     With  you   if   a  drop    of  the 
wine  be  spilled,  it  must  reverently  be  licked   up  ; 
if-a  mouse  run  away  with  a  crumb  of  the  bread' 
the  whole  Church  is  in  commotion  ;  "  if  a  Priest 
vomit  the  Eucharist  he  must  swallow  it  again." 
Such  being  the  difference  of  usage,  and  such  the 
clear   testimonies    of  the  .Fathers,    let  me  once 
more    refer  their   opinions  to  your  re-considera- 
tion. 

3.  Under  the  head  in  which   you   attempt  to 
meet  my  objections   to  Transubstantiation,  "  as 
contrary  to  reason  and  contradictory  to  the  sen- 
ses," I  know  not  whether  you   are  most  feeble 
or  most  prolix.     Your  parallel  between  Professor 
Norton's  objections  to  the  Trinity,  and  mine  to 
the  real  presence,   is  only  remarkable  for   this, 
that  you  seem  to  prefer  the  sacrifice  of  the  Trinity 
to   the    surrender   of  Transubstantiation.     It   is 
surely  a  most  profane  parallel.     But  the  contrast 
between  the  Trinity  and  Transubstantiation,  is 
perfect  in  all  its  parts.     1.  There  is  not  a  word 
of  Scripture  for  the  real  presence :  whereas  it  is 
redundant  in  favour  of  the  Trinity.     2.  Transub- 
stantiation is  contrary  to  reason  and  contradictory 
to  the  senses:   whereas  the  Trinity  does  not  the 
least  violence  to  either.     I  would  ask  you  if  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  does  contradict  the  senses? 
Your  whole  argument  then,  as  derived  from  the 
Unitarian  is  this— the  Unitarian  says  the  Trinity 
is  contrary  to  reason,  which  Mr.  Hughes  does 
not  believe;  therefore  Transubstantiation  is  not 
contrary  to   reason    and   the    senses.     A    noble 
syllogism  truly  !     Is  it  impossible  for  your  fake 
doctrine  to  .contradict  reason  and  the  senses,  be- 
cause a   Unitarian   says    a  true  doctrine  does  ? 
In  reference  to  Hume  I  still  insist,  that  if  Tran- 
substantiation   be   true   he   cannot  be    confuted. 
You   seem   not   to  understand  his  system.     He 
found  prepared  to  his  hand   a  false  philosophy, 
which  in  violation  of  common  sense  denied  first 
principles.     Previous    philosophers    had   denied 
the  existence  of  matter.     And  who  can  prove  it  ? 
It  is  self-evident ;  nothing  is  clearer  to  prove  it 
by ;  we  look  to  the  senses  for  the  proof  of  it. 


•-»«» 


Proceeding   on  the   same  false  principle,   he  de- 
nied   the  existence  of  spirit.     11"  you   grant  his 

principle,  it  is  impossible  to  answer  his  annimenls. 
Now  as  his  error  started  with  the  absurdity 
of  contradicting  the  senses,  and  rejecting  their 
testimony  about  the  existence  of  matter,  so 
Transuhstantiation,  in  the  same  way  contradicts 
the  senses  by  saying  that  bread  ceases  to  be 
bread,  and  has  only  the  appearance  of  bread, 
when  all  our  senses  tell  us  it  is  still  bread.  We 
prove  it  to  be  bread  as  we  prove  the  existence 
of  all  matter,  on  the  testimony  of  the  senses.  We 
feel  it,  we  taste,  we  smell  it,  we  see  it  that  it  is 
very  bread,  after  all  your  consecrations  ;  and  the 
moment  that  you  admit  that  it  is  not  bread,  Hume 
steps  in  and  on  the  same  proof,  may  deny  the 
existence  of  all  matter.  Whoever  therefore  takes 
your  ground,  if  a  thinking  and  consistent  man, 
must  launch  into  the  wide  sea  of  universal  scep- 
ticism. Hence  it  has  happened,  as  in  Spain 
and  South  America  at  this  day,  that  multitudes 
of  your  priests  are  infidels,  as  well  as  men  of 
pleasure,  in  the  worse  sense  of  the  terms;  for 
your  doctrines  lead  to  it.  And  hence  too  the 
mass  of  your  people  are  as  superstitious  as  the 
Hindoos  themselves;  their  confused  views  of  the 
body  of  Christ  are  transferred  to  all  things 
around  them;  and  wizzards,  and  witches,  and 
saints,  and  angels,  and  devils  possess  all  objects, 
and  people  the  creation  ;  and  holy  water,  and 
amulets,  and  relics,  and  images,  and  crosses,  and 
beads,  and  agnus  Dei's,  and  exorcisms  abound; 
and  they  must  have  something  around  the  neck, 
or  in  the  bosom,  at  all  times,  to  save  them  from 
devils,  witches,  fevers,  fires,  shipwrecks,  &c.  &c. 
Here  I  cannot  but  remark  on  the  shocking  way 
in  which  you  express  your  ideas  of  the  incarna- 
tion of  the  Son  of  God.  You  speak  of  "  omni- 
potence, omniscience,  and  omnipresence,  wrapt 
in  swaddling  clothes;"  "  the  artificer  of  the  uni- 
verse turned  carpenter ;"  "  the  eternal  God  sub- 
jected to  the  meannesses  of  hunger  and  thirst;"  and 
you  adopt  this  as  your  creed  by  saying  "all  this 
you  must  believe,  if  you  believe  the  divinity  of  Je- 
sus Christ."  No  Sir,  1  do  not  believe  one  word  of 
it,  and  it  is  an  insult  to  the  God  of  heaven  to  con- 
nect such  expressions  with  his  august  nature.  1 
believe  that  the  man  Christ  Jesus  was  thus  expos- 
ed, and  that  the  eternal  God  was  and  is  united 
to  the  man  Christ  Jesus  ;  but  that  God  could 
not  be  born  or  suffer,  or  die  any  more  than  "  his 
divinity,  together  with  the  soul  and  body  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  could  be  called  into  a  piece  of 
bread  by  the  incantations  of  a  priest,  and  then  be 
eaten  by  the  mouths  of  men.  Again,  even  al- 
lowing that  the  body  of  Christ  was  really  and 
carnally  present  in  the  Eucharist,  it  would  still 
he  moss  idolatry  to  worship  it.  For  I  would 
ask,°what  is  the  proper  object  of  divine  worship 
but  the  divine  attributes  and  perfections  1  To 
worship  the  body  of  Christ  alone,  is  idolatry,  as 
much  as  to  worship  a  stock,  or  stone,  or  any 
mere  creature.  We  worship  Christ  as  God: 
But  you  worship  ihe  flesh  (as  you  call  it)  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Is  this  not  downright  idolatry  1  For 
you  do  not  merely  adore  God  in  the  communion, 


but  you  "  elevate  the  host,"  i.  e.  the  consecrated 
wafer,  (not  God,  for  you  cannot  handle  and  elevate 
an  infinite  spirit)  and  you  "  adore"  what  you  de- 
rate. So  that  even  if  it  be  Christ's  body,  you  are 
guilty  of  gross  idolatry;  and  if  it  bo  not,  of  course, 
it  is  idolatry  ;  so  that  taken  cither,  or  any  way, 
to  worship  it  is  idolatry.  Your  ideas  of  matter 
are  surely  of  the  most  extraordinary  kind,  and 
as  dangerous  to  Christianity  as  they  are  absurd 
in  themselves.  The  truth  of  Christianity  was 
suspended  by  its  author,  on  his  resurrection  from 
the  dead.  Now  if  his  body  did  rise,  it  was  and 
is  a  body  still  ;  and  though  refined,  not  a  spirit, 
for  Christ  said  "  handle  me  and  see,  for  a  spirit 
hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  you  see  me  have." 
Luke  xxiv.  39.  And  yet  you  venture  to  say 
"  his  body  can  be  in  two  places  at  once  ;  and  if 
in  lico,  so  in  a  miiRon  of  places,  and  yet  be  at  the 
right  hand.  His  body  is  spiritual:  that  is  en- 
dowed with  the  properties  of  a  spirit."  Let 
Augustine  (Epist.  57.  ad  Dardan)  answer  you. 
"  Take  places  away  from  bodies,  and  the  bodies 
shall  be  no  where:  because  they  shall  be  no 
where,  they  shall  not  be  at  all."  He  thought 
that  an  omnipresent  body,  was  no  body-  A  body 
present  in  a  million  of  places  at  tlie  same  time  ! 
Is  not  this  a  precise  equivalent  to  the  Eutychean 
heresy  which  denied  that  Christ  had  a  body  at 
all?  "A  body  endowed  with  the  properties  of  a 
spirit!"  Is  not  this  absurd]  Is  it  not  to  say 
that  it  is  not  a  body,  for  the  properties  of  a 
spirit,  make  a  spirit  ,■  and  a  body  is  that  which 
has  not  the  properties  of  a  spirit.  Do  you 
not  then  in  fact  take  the  ground  of  the  Sweden- 
borgians,  and  Shaking  Quakers,  and  deny  the 
bodily  resurrection  of  Christ,  making  it  all  spirit 
tual?  You  most  stangely  appeal  to  John  xx.  19. 
"  When  the  doors  were  shut,  where  the  disciples 
were  assembled  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  Jesus  came 
and  stood  in  the  midst."  This  you  apply  to 
prove,  that  as  Christ  must  have  come  through  ther 
door,  or  the  wall,  therefore  the  body  of  Christ 
existed  in  the  same  space  which  was  occupied 
by  the  closed  door  or  wall.  Suiely  you  will  not 
call  this  infallible  interpretation.  Do  you  forget  that 
Christ  had  power  to  open  the  door  by  miracle,  as 
the  prison  doors,  shortly  after  this  were  opened 
and  shut  again  by  the  angel  of  God,  who  liberat- 
ed the  apostles  without  disturbing  the  keepers  ? 
Acts  v.  19.  Do  you  forget  that  Christ  had  power 
miraculously  to  open  a  passage  for  his  body 
through  the  door  or  wall,  and  close  it  again  T 
Do  you  forget  that  matter  having  all  the  proper- 
ties of  matter,  may  be  transmitted  through  other 
matter  and  yet  neither  occupy  the  place  of  the 
other,  as  light  passing  through  a  pane  of  glass  1 
You  adduce  Christ's  appearing  to  Paul  on  his 
way  to  Damascus,  as  a  proof  that  his  body  was 
in  two  places  at  the  same  lime.  Christ  also  ap- 
peared to  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  50,  who  said  "behold 
I  see  the  heavens  opened  and  the  Son  of  man 
standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God."  Pray  tell 
me  where  \s  the  right  hand  of  God?  Have  you 
any  proof  that  Christ  was  not  at  his  right  hand 
when  he  was  seen  by  Paul  1  Until  you  make 
this  appear,  your  reasoning  upon  the  passage  is 


364 


but  a  begging  of  the  question  we  are  discussing. 
I  observe  in  all  your  remarks  about  our  ignorance 
of  space  and  time  abstracted  from  the  natural  rela- 
tion of  bodies,  you  exclude  -the  bread.  Now  the 
bread  in  our  hands  is  certainly  in  its  natural  rela- 
tion, both  as  to  time  and  space,-  and  whatever  we  do 
not  know,  this  we  do  know,  that  it  is  bread,  possess- 
ing all  the  properties  ofbread,  after  as  well  as  be- 
fore consecration  ;  and  as  such,  we  handle,  and 
break,  and  eat  it;  and  being  such,  it  is  not  the  body 
of  Christ.  This  we  know.  You  attempt  in  vain  to 
meet  my  exposure  of  youi  illustration,  drawn' from 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  Jesus  Christ 
at  his  baptism.  I  ask,  was  the  Holy  Ghost  ever 
incarnate,  or  is  he  now  ]  And  can  you  then  still 
insist  that  the  case  is  parallel  ;  or  that  the  visible 
manifestation  of  Deity  is  the  same  thing,  or  a  simi- 
lar thing  to  the  Transubstantiation  of  bread  into 
a  human  body,  a  human  soul  and  the  Divinity, 
yet  retaining  every  appearance  of  bread  1 

4.  Your  remarks  on  the  doctrine  of  intention; 
on  the  early  silence  of  Jews,  Pagans,  and  apos- 
tate Christians,  about  Transubstantiation  ;  on 
the  Eucharist  as  a  miracle,  and  yet  no  miracle, 
since  all  miracles  are  palpable  to  the  senses  ;  are 
mere  evasions,  and  call  for  nn  reply.  My  argu- 
ments on  these  topics  stand  just  where  they  did, 
except  that  your  failure  to  meet  them  shows  their 
strength.  As  to  the  ancient  Liturgies,  I  am  pre- 
pared to  meet  you  on  that  question  when  you 
please.  I  would  only  here  ask  you,  whether  the 
Mass  used  in  your  Church  is  not  altered  so  as  to 
differ  materially  from  the  ancient  Liturgy  on  the 
subject  of  the  real  presence  1  If  you  deny  it,  I 
will  prove  it. 

III.  Having  now,  as  I  suppose,  effectually  dis- 
posed of  Transubstantiation,  1  proceed  briefly  to 
expose  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  which  you  at- 
tempt to  defend  in  Letter  No.  XXIX.  This  doc- 
trine is  the  legitimate  offspring  of  Transubstan- 
tiation, as  we  have  already  remarked,  and  of 
course  falls  with  it.  But  it  is  worthy  of  a 
separate  notice,  especially  as  you  own  that  it  is 
the  chief  business  of  your  clergy  to  offer  up  this 
sacrifice.  The  doctrine  of  your  Church  is  "that 
the  same  Christ  who  once  offered  himself  by  his 
blood,  on  the  altar  of  the  cross,  is  contained  in 
this  divine  sacrifice,  which  is  celebrated  in  the 
Mass,  and  offered  without  blood;  and  the  holy 
Council  (of  Trent)  teaches  that  this  is  really  pro- 
pitiatory, and  made  by  Christ  himself  :"  "  the 
victim  and  the  Priest  are  the  same  Christ  our 
Lord:"  "in  the  Mass  there  is  offered  to  God,  a 
true,  proper,  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  living 
and  the  dead."  (See  Council  of  Trent,  1st  and 
2d  chapters  on  the  Mass ;  the  Catechism  on  the 
Eucharist,  and  Creed  of  Pius  IV.;  also  m  Let- 
ter No.  XXIV.) 

Against  this  "  blasphemous  fable,"  as  it  is 
called  in  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England, 
we  have  already  (See  Letter  No.  XXIV.)  said 
much  which  you  have  left  unanswered.  We 
now  add  :  1.  This  is  properly  no  sacrifice,  be- 
cause every  real  sacrifice  supposes  the  death  of 
the  victim,  and  abo  its  oblation  to  God.  But 
the  Council  of  Trent  confesses  as  quoted  above, 


that  it  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice  ;  and   the  Apostle 
Paul   tells  us,  Heb.  ix.  22.  "  that  without  shed- 
ding of  blood  is  no  remission."     It  follows  there- 
fore that  it  is  no  sacrifice,  and  especially  not  pro- 
pitiatory, though  the  Council  calls  it  so.     Your 
standards  confess   that   there  is   no  destruction  of 
life  in  the   sacrifice  of  the   Mass.     The  bread  is 
destroyed,  but  bread  cannot  be   a  victim.     How 
then  can  you  call  it  a  sacrifice?     Again,  there  is 
no  oblation  ;  for   there  can  be  no  offering  up  of 
Christ,   if  Transubstantiation  be  false;    and  we 
have    abundantly   proved    that  it  is.     2.    If   the 
Mass  be  a  true  sacrifice,  then   Christ  did   at  the 
last  Supper  offer  up  his   body  and  blood  as  a  true 
propitiatory    sacrifice    to    God    before  he    offered 
himsplf  on    the   cross.     You    acknowledge   that 
you  offer  in  the  Mass  what  Christ  offered  in  the 
Supper;  then  if  the  Mass  be  true  a  sacrifice,  Christ 
must  have  offered   himself  as  a  sacrifice  to   God 
in   the   Supper   before  he    suffered   on    the    cross. 
Of  course  Christ  laid   down   his    life   before  his 
death  ;  that  is,  he  offered  himself  twice,  which  is 
an  absurdity.     But  it  is  clear  that  Christ  did  not 
shed  his  blood  at  the   Supper,  and  without   shed- 
ding of  blood   there  is  no  proper  sacrifice.     The 
Mass,  therefore,  cannot  be  a  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice.    3.  We  are  expressly  told  in  Hebrews  that 
Christ  made  but  one  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  him- 
self to  God.      Thus  it  is  written,  Heb.  x.  11-14. 
"  Every  Priest,  (Jewish)  standeth  daily  minister- 
ing and   offering   oftentimes   the    same   sacrifices 
which   can   never  take  away  sins  :  but  this  man 
(Christ)  after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins 
forever  sat  down   on  the  right  hand  of  God  ;  for 
by  one  offering  he  hath   perfected  forever  them 
that  are  sanctified."'   And  again,  verse  10.;  "we 
are  sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of 
Christ  once."     Here  there  is  a  definite  statement 
that  Christ    was   offered  but  once,-    yet   in  your 
Church,  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  you  profess 
to  offer  him  daily,  and   in   different  parts  of  the 
world,  millions  of  times  every  year.    The  churches 
in   Madrid,   alone  in  about  one  century,   offered 
Christ  558,921  times,  at  the  price  of  £1,720,437, 
for  relieving  from   Purgatory,   1,030.395  souls!! 
Truly  this  is  changing  the  temple  of  God  into  a 
house  of  merchandise  ;  and  this  at  last  is  the  se- 
cret magic   of  the  Mass.     But  the  word  of  God 
makes  not  the  least  mention   of  Christ's  sacrifice 
being  offered  again  on  earth  after  his  death,  or  of 
repeating  it  in  the  Mass.     So  far  from   this  we 
are  told  Hebrews  ix.  12.  "  that  by  his  own  blood 
Christ  entered  into  the  holy  place  having  obtain- 
ed eternal  redemption  for  us."     4.  The   Apostle 
plainly  contradicts  the  doctrine  of  the  Mass  when 
he  lays  down  the  principle,  that  if  Christ  be  of- 
fered often  he  must  suffer  often.     (Hebrews  ix.  25, 
26.)     "  Nor  yet  that  he  should  offer  himself  often, 
as  the  High  Priest  entereth  into  the  holy  place 
every   year  with   blood  of  others ;  for  then  must 
he  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the 
world ;  but  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath 
he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of 
himself."     If  then   you   really  offer  Christ,  you 
renew  his  sufferings  and  repeat  his  death,  by  every 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass.    Yet  you  call  it  an  un- 


265 


bloody  sacrifice,  and  deny  that  Christ  really  suf- 
S*rs  ,•  though  you  say  you  offer  the  same  victim 
that  died  upon  the  cross.  Thus  do  you  contra- 
dict yourselves,  and  do  violence  to  the  word  of 
God.  5.  The  Mass  makes  an  external  visible 
sacrifice  of  a  thing  that  is  perfectly  invisible; 
for  it  is  Christ's  body  which  you  say  is  the  mat- 
ter of  the  sacrifice  in  the  Mass;  and  yet  this  mat- 
ter is  not  seen  nor  perceived  by  any  of  the  senses. 
If  Christ  had  thus  offered  himself  on  the  cross, 
who  would  have  known  it?  It  would  have  been 
the  offering  of  a  shadow  and  not  a  substance  to 
God.  You  might  just  as  well  have  an  invisible 
Priest,  and  an  invisible  altar.  It  is  a  gross  ab- 
surdity. 6.  It  is  not  to  this  day  determined  in 
the  Church  of  Rome  what  is  the  essence  of  this  sa- 
crifice, and  wherein  the  true  sacrificial  act  should 
be  placed.  The  subject  is  involved  in  inexplica- 
ble difficulties.  To  put  this  to  the  test,  I  now  ask 
you  to  tell  me  in  your  next  letter  wherein  they 
consist1?  Now  what  sort  of  sacrifice  must  that  be 
which  none  can  explain,  which  none  understand, 
and  which  none  can  tell  whether  it  consists  in 
the  oblation,  the  consecration,  the  breaking  or 
eating  of  the  elements  ?  7.  Your  own  mass  book, 
though  altered  from  the  ancient  Liturgy,  still 
goes°directly  in  the  face  of  such  a  sacrifice  as  you 
profess  to  offer,  in  several  of  its  parts  ;  and  ap- 
pears to  be  a  strange  compound  of  ancient  truth, 
and  modern  errors.  It  is  easy  to  make  this  mani- 
fest if  you  call  for  it.  Yet  this  is  the  sacrifice  by 
which  you  help  souls  out  of  purgatory.  As  if 
conscious  that  it  could  not  be  defended,  you  have 
left  untouched  my  refutation  of  purgatory  present- 
ed many  weeks  ago.  Upon  this  profane  and  un- 
scriptural  institution  have  you  hung  the  hopes  of 
innumerable  millions  of  souls*  For  this  doctrine 
you  bring  no  Scripture  proof.  Of  the  three  pas- 
sages in  Genesis.  Malachi,  and  Hebrews,  not  one 
has  the  least  reference  to  the  subject.  I  have 
much  more  to  say  on  this  subject  which  I  now 
omit  for  want  of  room,  and  am  prepared  to  show 
from  Scripture,  and  antiquity,  and  reason,  that 
this  innovation,  so  profitable  to  the  Priests  and  so 
ruinous  to  the  souls  of  the  people,  is  utterly  anti- 
Christian. 
IV.  We  come  next  to  consider  your  defence  of  the 
Roman  church  for  taking  the  cup  from  the  people 
in  the  Eucharist.  Your  first  reason  is  that  Christ 
is  present,  whole  and  entire  under  each  of  the  spe- 
cies of  the  sacrament.  But  the  force  of  this  de- 
pends, as  you  are  aware,  on  the  truth  of  Transub- 
stantiation  ;  and  I  think  that  by  this  time  the 
community  are  satisfied  that  this  is  a  slender 
thread  on  which  to  suspend  such  an  innovation. 
Our  Lord  must  have  known  the  nature  of  his  sa- 
craments as  well  as  you  do,  and  yet  he  command- 
ed the  cup  to  be  used,  as  well  as  the  bread. 

2.  You  contend  that  when  Christ  said  "drink 
ye  all  of  this,"  and  "this  do  in  remembrance  of 
me,"  he  addressed  Apostles  and  Ministers  only; 
and  therefore  if  the  people  are  to  have  the  cup, 
the  people  also  are  to  "  consecrate  and  offer  the 
sacrifice  which  he  had  just  instituted."  Yet  you 
admit  below  "  that  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the 
church  the  communion  was  administered  to  the 


laity  in  both  kinds."  Then  on  your  admission  it 
follows  that  the  church  in  the  first  ages  understood 
Christ  to  confer  on  the  laity  the  right  of  adminis- 
tering the  sacrament  of  the  supper.  But  this  you 
deny;  and  of  course  contradict  yourself.  I  ask 
then  why  the  early  Christians  gave  the  cup  to  the 
laity  ?  But  again  the  Council  of  Trent  in  so 
many  words,  says  "  that  it  was  not  till  the  last 
supper  that  our  Lord  ordained  the  Apostles  to  be 
Priests  of  the  New  Testament ;"  and  you  say  the 
same.  I  ask  then,  were  the  Apostles  Priests  when 
they  applied  "  the  sacrament"  of  extreme  miction 
to  the  sick?  (Mark  vi.  13.)  If  they  were,  then 
they  were  made  Priests  before  the  last  supper;  for 
none  but  Priests  can  administer  sacraments. 
But  you  say  they  were  made  Priests  at  the  last 
supper.  If  so,  it  follows  that  extreme  unction  was 
not  a  sacrament.  But  your  church  says  it  is  a 
sacrament.  Then  the  church  has  erred,  and  is 
not  infallible.  Yet  if  it  be  a  sacrament,  institut- 
ed by  Christ,  as  you  say,  then  the  Apostles  ad- 
ministered it,  before  they  were  priests,  or  if  you 
say,  they  were  priests,  before  the  last  supper,  then 
the  church  has  erred,  for  she  says  ,they  were  not. 

3.  It  appears  then  that  the  Roman  Church  has, 
after  all,  violated  an  express  law  of  Christ.  For 
He  said  "drink  ye  all  of  it,"  to  those  to  whom 
he  said  "take,  eat;"  and  if  you  may  do  away  the 
"cup"  so  you  may  the  "bread;"  and  if  he  meant 
the  Priests  only  to  have  the  "cup,"  he  meant  the 
priests  only  to  have  "the  bread,"  and  so  there  is 
no  sacrament.  You  own  "  that  in  the  earlier 
ages,"  they  gave  the  cup  to  the  laity.  Why? 
Arid  why  alter  the  practice"?  Is  not  the  change 
an  insult  to  Christ1?  You  say  it  is  not  "es- 
sential" to  give  the  cup.  How  dare  you  say  so 
when  Christ  ordered  it  to  be  done1?  And  you  his 
priest  to  administer  his  sacrament?  Not  essential.' 
to  do  what  Christ  has  fixed  by  a  standing  law, 
and  in  a  holy  sacrament!  The  councils  of  Late- 
ran  and  Trent  own  that  the  cup  was  primitively 
received  by  the  people;  but  gravely  tell  us  that 
for  good  and  sufficient  reasons  the  church  has  by 
law  changed  it;  and  has  added  an  anathema  to 
him  who  disputes  the  Church's  authority! 

4.  By  this  act  you  nullify  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. You  divide  what  Christ  united,  viz.  the 
cup  from  the  bread.  Now  as  you  drop  one 
half,  you  destroy  the  entire  institution.  The  Eu- 
charist is  never,  no  never,  celebrated  in  your 
church.  You  not  only  pervert  it  by  the  pretended 
sacrifice,  when  it  is  no  sacrifice,  but  you  destroy  it, 
by  dropping  one-half,  and  the  more  important 
part,  if  there  be  a  difference.  And  now  I  call  on 
you  prove  your  right  to  do  so;  and  to  show  that 
the  earliest  antiquity  gives  to  this  criminal  mutila- 
tion, nay,  destruction  of  the  Eucharist,  the  least 
countenance. 

V.  We  come  next  to  your  stereotype  questions. 
These  have  at  different  times  been  answered  by 
me  already;  and  I  doubt  not,  to  the  satisfaction  ot 
every  reasonable  man.  Your  motive  for  their  fre- 
quent repetition,  is  but  too  evident.  The  courso 
of  discussion  which  I  had  adopted  under  tho 
general  question,  viz.  "  is  the  Protestant  Religion 
the  Religion  of  Christ,"  led  me  in  the  first  place  to 


266 


expose  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  From  the  nature  of  the  question  this  was 
the  only  consistent  line  of  argument.  In  pursuit 
of  this  plan,  I  have  exposed  in  a  long  series  of 
unanswered  arguments  and  historical  facts,  the 
false  doctrines  and  abominations  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Instead  of  meeting  me  on  this  ground  you 
have  continually  been  crying  out  for  the  "question" 
the  "  question,"  desirous,  no  doubt,  to  call  me  off 
from  points  which  your  pen  could  not  defend,  and 
whose  discussion  your  cause  could  not  endure. 
To  prevent  an  endless  and  indeterminate  controver- 
sy, I  waived  the  points  on  which  we  agreed,-  and 
selected  those  on  which  we  differed.  On  these  dis- 
puted points  the  controversy  between  us  turns. 
Ton  hold  these  disputed  points  to  be  essential  as 
a  part  of  the  Religion  of  Christ ;  whereas  we  pro- 
test against  them  as  errors  and  innovations.  I 
fully  stated  these  disputed  tenets  in  my  definition 
of  the  Protestant  Religion  in  letter  No.  XX;  and 
since  that  time  have  been  engaged  in  confuting 
the  chief  part  of  them.  To  illustrate  this;  we 
agree  that  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church  ;  hut 
you  add  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  I  have 
shown  his  supremacy  to  be  an  anti-chiistian  usur- 
pation. When  this  Papal  exeresence  is  cut  off, 
the  Christian,  Protest;) nt.  headship  of  Christ  re- 
mains. We  agree  that  the  Bible  is  a  rule  of  faith; 
but  you  add  to  it  the  apochryphal  books,  unwrit 
ten  tradition,  an  infallible  interpreter,  and  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers.  I  exposed 
your  additions,  and  showed  that  they  are  unchris- 
tian novelties.  The  Christian,  Protestant  Rule  of 
Faith  remains.  We  agree  that  God  is  the  proper 
object  of  religious  worship  ;  but  you  add  to  this, 
gross  idolatry,  in  the  worship  of  the  cross,  the 
consecrated  bread,  the  Virgin  Mary,  angels,  saints, 
pictures,  relics,  and  images.  I  exposed  this  idol- 
atry; the  Christian,  pure,  Protestant  worship  of 
God  alone  remains.  We  agree  that  Christ  insti- 
tuted the  two  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Eu- 
charist; but.  you  corrupt  these,  two  and  add  five 
more.  I  have  exposed  these  your  corruptions  and 
additions;  the  Christian. .Protestant  sacraments 
remain;  and  so  of  the  other  points  of  difference, 
whether  it  be  your  additions  to  or  subtractions  from 
the  Religion  of  Christ.  At  every  step,  therefore, 
in  this  discussion,  (besides  my  direct  replies,  at 
the  close  of  several  of  my  letters,)  I  have  been 
answering  your  interrogatories  by  assailing  and 
confuting  those  doctrines  of  your  church  agamst 
which  we  protest.  ' 

But  to  be  more  particular.  You  ask  1.  "TV/iat 
is  the  Protestant  Religion.''''  Answer.  It  is  the 
Religion  of  the  Reformation,  in  contradistinction 
from  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  as  it  concerns 
doctrine,  and  morality,  government,  discipline, 
and  worship.  It  is  the  religion  which  is  exclu- 
sively derived  from  and  consistent  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  the  only  infallible  Rule  of  Faith  end 
practice  ,■  and  which  protests  against  the  errors  and 
corruptions  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  After  all 
your  vain  cavils,  this  definition  is  clear,  minute, 
and  just.  You  object  that  Deists  protest  (see 
Letter  No.  23)  against  the  Roman  Catholic  Reli- 
gion.    True;  but  I  defined,  the  points  on  which 


we  protest;  and  they  in  important  respects,  differ 
from  the  protests  of  Deists;  for  Deists  protest 
against  those  points  in  which  we  differ  from  you  ; 
and  Deists  protest  also  against  those  points  in 
which  we  agree  with  you.  You  object  again  to  the 
definition  "that  our  religion  is  derived  exclusively 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  because  we  derive  it  by 
private  interpretation."  But  how  else  shall  we  de- 
rive it'?  I  have  fully  proved  that  your  infallibity  is  a 
figment,  that  your  rule  of  faith  is  a  failure  and  a 
fraud  ;  that  the  right  use  of  reason,  under  the 
guidance  of  God,  is  the  only  way  ;  and  that  as  to 
abuses,  your  forcing  the  sense  of  Scripture  and  the 
conscience  of  men,  have  led  to  greater  abuses  than 
private  interpretation  ever  did,  with  this  difference 
against  you,  that  if  men  abuse  private  interpreta- 
tion, that  is  not  the  fault  of  our  rule,  or  our 
method  of  using  it;  whereas,  your  enormous 
abuses  of  the  Bible  are  by  authority,  and  your 
church  must  answer  to  God  for  all  the  violence 
she  has  done  to  conscience,  reason,  and  his  holy 
word.  Once  more,  you  object  to  the  definition, 
that  "  our  religion  is  consistent  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures,"  and  say  that  "  every  sect  claims  the 
same  for  its  notions."  It  is  true  ;  but  are  claims 
facts'?  Do  false  claims  destroy  true  ones'? 
False  prophets  claimed  inspiration ;  does  that 
destroy  the  evidence  of  Paul's  inspiration  1 
False  Christs  arose  ;  does  that  falsify  the  true 
Christ  1  The  truth  of  a  definition  depends  upon 
the  proof  of  a  conformity  between  the  thing  defined 
and  the  terms;  and  I  have  proved  the  justness  of  my 
definition  in  the  progress  of  this  discussion.  If 
heretical  sects  do  claim  conformity  to  the  Bible, 
they  pay  more  respect  to  it  than  the  Church  of 
Rome  does,  for  she  professedly  violates  Bible 
law  by  taking  the  cup  from  the  laity  in  the  Eu- 
charist; by  using  prayers  in  an  unknown  tongue; 
by  forbidding  priests  to  marry;  by  making  a  sa- 
crament of  extreme  unction,  &c.  &c. 

2d  Question.  "  I  call  upon  you  to  say,  what 
society  of  Christians  ever  taught  this  pretended 
'  Religion  of  Christ'  previous  to  the  Reformation?" 
This  question  was  answered  at  large  in  Letters 
No.  XX.  and  XXIV.  I  answer,  that  the  name 
Protestant  is  new,  but  not  the  Religion.  The 
name  Roman  Catholic  is  also  new,  as  well  as  ab- 
surd. Neither  name  is  found  in  the  Apostle's 
creed,  or  any  early  creed;  and  the  Roman  Church 
was  not  even  called  Catholic  for  ages  after  the 
Apostles'  days.  Protestant,  is  a  new  name  for  the 
old  Religion  of  Christ,  which  was  given  to  those 
who  protested,  at  the  Reformation,  against  the  cor- 
ruptions of  that  Religion  by  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Every  society  of  Christians  on  earth  from  the 
days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  held 
the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Religion  !  All 
the  churches  founded  by  the  Apostles  (includ- 
ing Rome)  beginning  at  Jerusalem,  in  Asia, 
Africa,  and  Europe,  held  essentially,  the  doc^ 
trines  of  the  Protestant  Church  until  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  ;  as  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the 
formularies  issued  by  the  Reformers  with  the 
Apostles'  creed  ;  the  Athanasian  creed ;  the 
Nicene  creed,  and  the  writings  at  large  of  the 
Ante-nicene  Fathers.     In  order  to  test  this,  will 


207 


you  be  so  good  as  to  take  up  these  formularies 
and  compare  them,  first  with  these  monuments  of 
antiquity,  and  secondly,  with  the  word  of  God  1 
After  Arius  arose,  the  Church  by  degrees  became 
corrupted  with  his  heresy;  and  finally.  Liberius 
the  Bishop  (Pope)  of  Rome,  signed  the  Anan 
creed  ;  several  Councils  adopted  Arianism  ;  and 
finally,  as  Hilary  informs  us,  Arianism  was 
spread  throughout  the  whole  world.  Still  a  rem- 
nant was  left  according  to  the  faithful  promise  of 
Christ  to  his  Church,  which  professed  the  true 
Religion;  and  from  age  to  age  till  the  glorious 
Reformation  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Protestant  Church,  though  perse- 
cuted by  the  Church  of  Rome,  were  cherished 
(as  I  have  shown  in  previous  letters)  by  faithful 
witnesses  to  the  truth.  The  Syrian  Christians  to 
whom  I  have  often  in  vain  invited  your  attention, 
who  were  never  connected  with  or  subject  to  the 
Church  of  Rome,  who  reject  your  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture; who  were  condemned  by  your  Archbishop 
for  holding  Protestant  doctrines,  and  who  derived 
from  Apostolical  days  their  Bible  and  their 
creed  ;  are  a  living  monument  to  the  Christianity 
of  Protestantism,  and  to  the  innovations  and  cor- 
ruptions of  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  is  also  noto- 
rious, that  the  Christian  churches  in  England, 
and  Ireland,  held  the  Protestant  doctrines  in  their 
essential  purity,  before  and  when  the  first  emissa- 
ries of  the  Church  of  Rome  invaded  them,  and 
began  to  proselyte  them  to  the  Roman  Hierar- 
chy. 

Question  3d.  "I  call  upon  you  to  say,  whether 
Christ  revealed  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant 
Religion,  beginning  with  the  best  image  of  your 
Church,  Episcopalianism,  and  terminating  with 
the  most  consistent  of  Protestant  sects,  the  Uni- 
tarians 1  and  if  not,  how  many  denominations 
out  of  the  whole,  belong,  to  the  true  Protestant 
Religion,  the  Religion  of  Christ]" 

Answer.  In  your  Letter  No.  XXIII.  you  make 
the  following  acknowledgment,  viz :  "  touching 
what  are  called  '  Orthodox'  tenets  among  Pro- 
testants, I  have  to  observe  that  they  are  all  found 
in  the  Catholic  Church.  These  doctrines  always 
existed  in  the  Church  ;  and  the  Reformers  in 
going  out  from  the  Church,  carried  them  forth." 
Now,  we  agree  with  you,  that  some  who  call 
themselves  Protestants  are  not  Orthodox  in  their 
faith ;  and  you  agree  with  us  that  there  are 
'  orthodox'  Protestants.  I  refer  you  again  (as  in 
Letter  26)  to  the  Formularies  which  were  drawn 
up  and  published  by  the  Reformed  church  in  the 
16th  century.  There  were  no  less  than  12  of 
these,  viz.  the  Augustan,  Tetrapolitan,  Polish, 
Saxon,  Bohemian,  Wittemberg,  Palatine,  Helve- 
tic, French,  Dutch,  English,  and  Scotch  Confes- 
sions. These  doctrinal  standards  exhibited  the 
Christian  Theology  and  unity  of  the  flower  of 
Europe  as  to  its  character,  and  of  half  its  popula- 
tion as  to  number.  They  were  issued  as  by  one 
simultaneous  movement;  they  agreed  essentially 
with  each  other;  and  with  one  consent  threw  off 
the  despotism,  and  corrupt  doctrines  of  the  church 
of  Rome.  Protestantism  pervaded  Norway, 
Sweden,   Denmark,   Poland,    Prussia,  Germany, 


Transylvania,    Hungary,    Switzerland,    France, 
Holland,  England,   Ireland,  Scotland  ;  and    soon 
reached  the  continents  of  Asia,  Africa,  and  Ame- 
rica.    That  there  have  been  and  are  many  sects 
calling  themselves   Protestants   whose  doctrines 
are  heretical,  who  are  not  Protestants,   and  with 
whom  we  cannot  symbolize,  Evangelical  Protes- 
tants are  as  free  to  admit  as  yourself,  and  cease 
not  to  deplore  it.     But   this  is   not  peculiar  to 
Protestantism.     No  church  has  so  abounded  with 
sects  as  the  church  of  Rome  ;  and  not  an  error  has 
arisen  in  the  Protestant  church  which  finds  not  its 
parentage  or  its  likeness  in   your  church.     You 
have  this  great  advantage  over  us,  that  by  the  In- 
quisition, or  the  stake,  or  a  crusade,  or  some  tre- 
mendous interdict,  you  compel   uniformity;  but 
our  people  are  subject  to  no  such  bodily  pains  and 
penalties,  and  persecutions,  and  stakes.     And  this 
also,  that  the  capacious  and  polluted  bosom  of 
the  church  of  Rome  can  contain  all  sorts  of  wick- 
edness, and  can  tolerate  all  sorts  of  irregularities 
if  her  peculiar  dogmas  and   dominion  are  but  re- 
cognized.    Thus  her  Priests,  as  in  South  Ameri- 
ca and   Spain,   may  spend   the  afternoon    of  the 
Lord's  day  in  the  cock-pit  orat  the  gambling-table, 
if  they  only  say  mass  in  the  morning;  and  the  con- 
venient morality  of  the  Jesuits  can  cover  and  ex- 
cuse any  sin,  even  fornication,  or  murder,  so  that 
the  Pope   be     acknowledged,     and     Protestants 
abhorred.     Now  we  cannot  do  so,  and  hence  we 
often  are  called  to  divide  from  us,  for  errors,  or 
immoralities,  those  who  give  rise  to  some  new  but 
small  sect.     Yet  after  all,  the  different  denomi- 
nations of  Protestant  Christians,  as  Episcopalians, 
Lutherans,  Baptists,  Congregationalists,  Metho- 
dists, Moravians,  and  Presbyterians,  agree  far  more 
nearly  with  each  other  than  the  various  sects  now 
existing  (as  I  shall  prove  in  my  next  letter)  in 
the  church  of  Rome.     But  if  the  Reformed  church 
is  made  responsible  for  the   many  heresies  and 
sects  with  which  you  charge  her,  I  ask  who  is  re- 
sponsible for  the  many  heresies  and  sects  which 
arose  in  the  church  of  Rome  at  the  Reformation  1 
Why  did  half  the  population   of  Europe  forsake 
the  church  of  Rome  and  break  into  various  sects  1 
You  say  the  fault  was  in   those  who  broke  off. 
Why  then  is  it  not  the  fault  of  those  who  break 
off  from  the  Protestant  church  1     You  affirm  that 
these  sects  and  heresies  in  the  Protestant  church 
are  produced  by  our  rule  of  Faith.     Then,  query, 
if  your  rule  pf  faith  be  so  perfect,  why  did  so  many 
sects  and  heresies  arise   in  your  bosom  1     Such 
are  the  inconsistencies  and  absurdities  involved  in 
your  system. 

The  4th  and  5th  questions  regard  Protpstant 
ordination.  Want  of  room  compels  me  to  delay 
an  answer  till  the  next  letter,  in  which,  Provi- 
dence permitting,  I  will  give  one  at  large.  I  ob- 
serve that  you  have  omitted  a  6th  question,  once 
numbered  in  the  series,  touching  the  character  of 
the  Reformers,  in  these  words,  "  Take  the  Re- 
formers as  they  have  been  described  by  them- 
selves, is  it  clear  that  they  were  the  men  whom 
God  would  have  selected  to  purify  the  church'?" 
This  question  was  returned  upon  you  in  the  wick- 
ed lives  of  the  Popes  with  such  effect,  that  you 


268 


Voluntarily  withdrew  it  from  the  list  of  your  aux- 
iliaries. 

But  I  must,  before  I  close,  notice  your  answers 
to  my  questions.  1.  You  say  that  '•  Pope  Libe- 
rius  did  not  sign  the  Arlan  creed  in  the  Arian 
sense  or  meaning."  This  is  a  mere  evasion.  I 
ask  in  what  sense  did  he  sign  it?  2.  What  coun- 
cils does  your  church  recognize,  and  by  what 
rules  is  she  guided,  if  she  reject  the  Councils  of 
Sermium,  Ariminum,  &c?  3.  I  repeat  the  ques- 
tion concerning  "  the  intention  of  Popes,  Bishops, 
and  Priests;"  supposing  they  do,  as  they  may, 
lack  intention,  are  their  acts  valid  ?  It  is  not 
true  that  "  they  have  no  motive  to  withhold  in- 
tention." Your  answers  to  the  remaining  ques- 
tions are  highly  important  and  shall  be  exposed 
in  my  next.  Let  me  here  remark  that  your  ap- 
probation of  the  Inquisition,  your  high  trihute  to 
the  Jesuits,  and  your  shunning  an  answer  on  the 
freedom  of  the  Press,  are  approaches  to  the  true 
spirit  of  Popery,  at  which  I  hope  our  readers  will 
distinctly  look  ;  and  from  which  the  most  im- 
portant results  are  promised.  Allow  me  to  add 
the  following  questions  to  those  which  you  have 
left  unanswered  in  your  last.  Is  there  any  evi- 
dence of  the  Pope's  Supremacy  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  ?  Were  the  Apostles  Priests  when 
they  administered  Extreme  Unction,  Mark  vi.  13. 
Has  the  Pope  a  right  to  put  a  kingdom  under  in- 
terdict, or  to  depose  a  monarch  or  chief  magis- 
trate ?  Did  the  second  Council  of  Pisa  decree 
a  reformation  in  faith  or  nor  ?  Did  the  Council 
of  Lateran  in  1215  pass  an  anathema  against 
those  rulers  who  shoujd  tax  Ecclesiastics?  Is 
not  the  second  commandment  dropped  from  the 
Catechisms  which  are  in  common  use  in  your 
Church  in  Europe  and  in  America1?  Have  not 
•"  The  Fathers"  been  altered  and  pruned  by  au- 
thority in  your  church"?  Are  the  Missal  and  the 
Breviary  authorized  and  standard  works?  When 
you  have  answered  these,  we  shall  have  additional 
light  on  the  policy  and  principles  of  the  Roman 
Church. 

I  remain,  Yours,  &c. 

John  Breckinridge. 

P.  S.  Last  Thursday  morning,  Mr.  Hughes  ac- 
cording to  his  promise  deposited  his  copy  of  Baro- 
niusin  the  Athenaeum  for  the  inspection  of  the  pub- 
lic, accompanied  with  a  paper,  of  which  the  fol- 
lowing is  a  correct  copy.  My  copy  of  Baronius, 
which  is  page  for  page  the  same  as  his,  was  laid 
beside  it.  As  no  notice  was  published  in  the  dai- 
ly papers  of  the  fact,  or  the  reason  of  it,  it  attract- 
ed, I  believe,  very  little  notice.  I  have  too  much 
reason  to  think  that  this  was  exactly  what  Mr. 
H.  wished. 

MR.  HUGHES'  NOTES. 
"  Theodora. — Baronius  tells  us,  paragraph  6. 
that  she  was  the  mistress  of  Albertus  Marquis  of 
Tuscany,  who  at  that  time  could  tyrannize  over 
Rome  by  means  of  the  Fort  of  St.  Angclo,  of  which 
he  was  master.  Consequently,  he  could  expel 
lawful  Popes  and  put  in  usurpers,  just  as  his  mis- 
tress directed.  Was  it  fair  in  Mr.  B.  to  suppress 
this? 


"Sergius — Baronius  tells  us  that  the  monster 
Sergius  was  a  usurper,  and  was  sustained  in  his 
usurpations  by  said  Albertus.  And  moreover,  that 
all  the  scandals  referred  to,  were  by  these  creatures 
of  a  tyrant.  "Perpetrata  sunt  ista  ab  invasori- 
bus  et  intrusis  !  !  verum  legitime  creati  Romani 
Pontifices  ista  vehementer  sunt  execrati."  §  3. 
Was  it  fair  then  to  suppress  this?  / 

'•  Apostate  Popes  and  not  Apostolical.1'' — Baro- 
nius says  this  in  reference  to  the  illegitimate  and 
tyrannical  manner  in  which  they  had  been  thrust 
into  the  place  of  the  lawful  Popes.  Was  it  fair 
to  suppress  this  ? 

"  Baronius  tells  us  the  church  was  "  disgraced" 
(infamari)  by  strumpets.  Mr.  Breckinridge 
translates  it  "governed"  by  strumpets.  Is  this 
fair  ? 

"  Baronius  occupies  the  whole  of  the  seventh 
paragraph  to  prove  how  manifestly  the providence 
of  God  appears  in  the  preservation  of  his  church  in 
those  days  of  tyranny,  scandal,  and  disorder.  He 
argues  that  it  would  have  been  rent  asunder,  "had 
not  God  with  his  supreme  watchfulness  preserved 
its  safety  and  integrity,"  "  nisi  Deus  ejus  inco- 
lumitati  et  integritaii  summa  vigilantia  prospexis- 
se/."  He  says  it  was  the  invisible  hand  of  God 
which  sustained  the  Church,  and  that  nothing  else 
could  sustain  it  under  the  shocking  scandals  of 
those  wicked  tyrants  and  intruders  which  he  had 
just  described. 

"Does  not  Mr.  Breckinridge,  then,  assert  what 
is  untrue  in  making  Baronius  say  that  the  church 
was  forgotten  by  God  ?  Did  he  ever  see  the  origi- 
nal ? 

N.  B.  The  Italian  copy  is  but  an  abridgment." 

As  this  appears  to  be  a  proper. occasion  to  dis- 
pose of  this  matter,  I  must  trespass  a  little  longer 
on  the  patience  of  my  readers  by  submitting  the 
following  answer  to  the  above  notes. 
In  my  last  letter  I  asserted  as  follows: 
1st.  "That  Theodora,  a  courtezan  of  noble 
family,  obtained  supreme  control  in  Rome." 

PROOF. 

Baronius,  Vol.  X.  p.  7G6.  Hast  thou  heard  of  the 
§5.  Audisti  temporis  hu-  most  deplorable  state  of  (his 
jus  deploratissinuim  sia-  lime,  when  Theodora  the 
turn,  cum  Theodora  senior  elder  a  noble  courtezan 
nobile  scorlum  monarchiam  oblained  (so  to  spef.k)  su- 
(ut  ita  dicam)  obtineret  in  preme  control  in  the  city  1 
urbe  ? 

Mr.  H-  leaves  this  assertion  untouched.  Ba- 
ronius unfortunately  is  too  explicit. 

2d.  "That  she  expelled  the  lawful  Popes  and 
put  violent  and  nefarious  men  into  the  Papal 
chair." 

PROOF. 
Baronius,  ibid.  §  6.  Ex  By  which  means  these 
quibus  tantarum  invaluit  courtezans  acquired  such 
meretricum  imperium  .ut  power  that  at  their  pleasure 
pro  arbitrio  legitime  crea-  they  expelled  the  lawfully 
tos  dimoverent  poniifices  et  constituted  popes,  and  put 
violentos  ac  nefarios  ho-  violent  and  nefarious  men 
mines  illis  pulsis  intruderent.     inl"  their  place. 

Mr.  H.  says  that  "  Albertus  could  expel  lawful 
Popes,  and  put  in  usurpers,  just  as  his  mistress 
directed.'"  (This  mistress  was  Marozia,  one  of  the 
noble  daughters  of  the   noble  Theodora.)     Here 


369 


we  agree.  Popes  have  been  deposed,  and  others 
appointed  at  the  direction  of  a  courtezan.  I  would 
like  to  know  whether  these  facts  are  stated  in 
the  Italian  translation  of  Baronius,  which  Mr.  H. 
promised  to  deposit  at  the  Athenaeum,  for  the  in- 
spection of  the  public,  but  which  he  withheld,  on 
the  ground  of  its  being  only  an  abridgment  !  It 
might  have  scandalized  the  devout  Italians  to 
read  such  things  about  their  Holy  Mother. 

3d.  "That  Pope  Sergius  III.  committed  adul- 
tery with  her  Theodora's)  daughter,  and  their  son 
John,  the  offspring  of  their  crimes  was  afterwards 
Pope  himself." 

PROOF. 

Luilprandus,    quoled    by  One   of  these   daughters, 

Baronius,  ibid,  $  5.    Harum  Marozia,     by     a     shocking 

una  Marozia  ex   Papa  Set-  adultery,   had    a   son    John 

gio Ibannem  qui sane-  by  Pope  Sergius,  who  after- 

ta  Ro manse  Ecclesiae  obti-  wards  obtained  the  dignity 

nuit  dignitatem  nefario  ge-  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church, 

nuil  adulterio.    Joannes  un-  John  XI.  son   of    the   pre- 

decimus    ex   Marozia  scor-  tended    Pope    Sergius,    by 

to  Scrgii  Pseudopapae  filius  Marozia    a     courtezan,    is 

papa   creatur.      See  Index  made  Pope, 
to  Vol.  X. 

Uncontradicted,  for  a  good  reason.  But  Mr. 
Hughes  says  Sergius  was  an  usurper.  1  grant 
it,  and  so  were  all  his  predecessors  and  succes- 
sors. But  I  would  ask,  did  not  this  usurper  hold 
the  Papal  chair  at  least  three  years  1  Were  not 
he  and  his  bastard  son  John  XI.  who  was  like- 
wise an  "  usurper,"  acknowledged  by  the  Catho- 
lic church  as  its  only  visible  head  1  Did  they 
not  perform  the  functions  of  Pontiffs  in  consecrat- 
ing Bishops,  &c.  If  they  were  not  true  Popes, 
then  the  line  of  succession  was  broken,  and  all 
the  consecrations  and  episcopal  acts  performed 
by  them  were  null  and  void.  How  does  Mr.  H. 
know  that  he  himself  has  not  received  his  ghostly 
authority  from  this  tainted  source  1 

4th.  "  He  (Baronius)  says  they  were  Apos- 
tate Popes,  and  not  Apostolical." 

PROOF. 

Baronius  ibid.  §  4.     Cum         Whereas  in  the  judgment 

tamen  eosdem  sedis  Apos-  of  sound  ecclesiastical   dis- 

tolicae  invasores  non  Apos-  cipline  such  invaders  of  the 

tolicos  sed  aposlaticos  esse  Apostolical   See  should    be 

dicendos,  Kcclesiastica  be-  called    not    apostolical   but 

ne  disposila   censuit   disci-  Apostate, 
plina. 

Not  denied  by  Mr.  H.  I  have  not  suppress- 
ed a  word  of  the  passage  or  context  here.  See 
assertion  second. 

5th.  "  Calls  the  times  deplorable."    See  1st. 
Admitted  by  Mr.  H.  by  "expressive  silence." 
6th.  "  And    the   scandal    overwhelming,   says 
the  church  was  governed  by   strumpets  and  for- 
gotten by  God." 


Baronius  ibid.  §  7.  Quis 
ista  considerans  non  obsiu- 
pescens.  scandalumqu  ■  pa- 
tiens  putarit,  Deum  obliium 
Ecclesiae  suae,  quam  mere- 
tricum  arbitrio  permiserit 
iufamari  ? 


Baronius  says  that  the  Church  was  dist-> 
graced  by  the  government  of  strumpets,  (infa- 
mari  arbitrio  meretricum.  And  here  I  cannot 
but  admire  the  courage  of  Mr.  II.  in  asserting 
under  his  hand  that  I  had  translated  infamari 
governed.  Did  he  not  know,  or  did  he  think  that 
the  intelligent  gentlemen  who  visit  the  Athenaeum 
would  not  discover  that  Baroniu3  uses  the  word 
arbitrio,  "  will,  pleasure,  rule,  power.''''  See  Ains- 
worth.  "Did  he  ever  see  the  original  V  Alas 
for  the  cause  that  needs  such  a  subterfuge  !  It  is 
not  only  once  or  twice  that  Baronius  makes  the 
same  assertion.  On  page  779.  §  viii.  he  says,  quae' 
tunc  facies  sanctae  Ecclesiae  Romanae  1  Quam 
foedissima,  cum  Romae  dominarenfur  potentissi- 
mas  aeque  ac  sordidissimae  meretrices  1  Quarum 
arbitrio,  &c.  "  What  was  then  the  aspect  of  the' 
Holy  Roman  Church  1  How  foul,  when  courte- 
zans at  once  the  most  powerful  and  most  sor- 
did, governed  Rome  ?" 

With  respect  to  the  assertion  "  that  God  had 
forgotten  his  church,"  Baronius  acknowledges 
that  it  would  be  a  rational  conclusion  in  any  one 
who  would  consider  these  things.  But  with 
much  Jesuitical  ingenuity  he  goes  on  to  show 
from  the  fact  that  no  schism  nor  heresy  occurred 
in  the  church  in  consequence  of  these  scandalous 
corruptions,  that  this  is  the  true  church  of  God  ! 
A  more  palpable  sopbism  was  never  conceived. 
It  only  proves  that  it  was  '  like  priest,  like  people.' 
For  if  there  had  been  any  virtue  in  the  communi- 
ty, a  church  which  had  thus  forsaken  God,  and 
been  forsaken  by  him,  would  have  become  "  a 
bye-word  and  a  hissing."  Moreover  Baronius, 
speaking  of  the  Pontificate  of  John  X.  another 
"  usurper"  who  obtained  the  chair  by  the  influ- 
ence of  his  paramour  Theodora,  and  held  it  six- 
teen years,  says  "Dormiebat  tunc  plane  alto  (ut 
apparet)  sopore  Christus  in  navi."  "  Surely 
Cbrist  was  then  sound  asleep  in  the  ship,  as  is 
evident."  Do  not  these  expressions  warrant  the 
assertion  that  Baronius  said  "  God  had  forgot- 
ten his  chcrch  1"  At  all  events  Mr.  H.  should 
be  the  last  pe.son  to  deny  that  God  had  forgotten 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  unless  it  could 
exist  without  a  head  For  he  tells  us  in  his  last 
letter  that  "  a  false  po,e  is  no  pope."  Baronius 
whom  he  acknowledges  u  i;e  good  authority  calls 
John  X.  pseudopapa,  pseud^ont:,jeXii  a  fuise  pope^ 
So  that  for  sixteen  years  theh,  was  no  p0pe  /  jf 
the  Catholic   Church  was  the  ^burch    of  God 


Who  in  view  of  these 
things  would  not  be  amazed 
and  shocked,  and  think  that 
God  had  forgotten  his 
church,   which  he   had  thus 

fiven  up  to  the  infamy  of 
eing  governed  by  strum- 
pets? 


where  was  his  care  of  it  all  this  ti 
not  forgotten  it 


ne  1     Had  he 
J.  B. 


The  following  letter  speaks  for  itself. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge, 

Sir, — Having  observed  in  the  papers  of  this 
morning  a  card  signed  by  M.  Fithian,  as  the  pub- 
lisher of  the  Review  of  Bishop  Onderdonk'scharge, 
in  which  reference  is  made  to  me,  it  becomes  my 
duty  to  say  that  his  statements  are  incorrect. 
Immediately  after  the  letter  of  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes' 
appeared,  in  which  he  says,  "  In  one  instance  a 
bookseller  who  enjoyed  some  sectarian  patronage 
was  actually  forbidden  to  keep  it  for  sale  ;"  I  was 
called  upon  by  the  said  Mr.  Fithian  to  ascertain 


370 


Whether  the  information  that  he  had  given,  and 
which  led  to  the  above  statement,  was  correct.  I 
told  him  that  it  was  not,  and  this  he  must  have 
known  when  he  gave  the  card  to  which  his  name 
is  annexed,  and  which  appeared  many  days  after 
our  interview.  I  was  never  forbidden  to  keep  it 
for  sale,  I  have  never  received  orders  of  any  kind 
whatever  on  the  subject,  nor  am  I  aware  that  it 
was  ever  known  by  the  members  composing  the 
Board,  that  I  had  received  the  work  at  all.  Any 
one  acquainted  with  the  nature  of  this  Institution, 
must  see  that  even  if  orders  had  been  given,  the 
statement  of  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  makes  a  false  im- 
pression on  the  public  mind.  lam  not  a  bookseller 
in  the  sense  in  which  that  term  is  ordinarily  un- 
derstood ;  but  an  agent  employed  in  a  Religious 
Institution.  lean  therefore  neither  "enjoy"  nor 
receive  " patronage ,-"    nor  be  influenced  in  the 


discharge  of  my  duties  by  the  fear  of  losing  it< 
The  object  of  the  Baptist  Tract  Society  is  the 
diffusion  of  what  that  denomination  considers 
truth.  All  its  agents  and  concerns  are  under  the 
direction  of  a  Board  of  Managers.  The  supply- 
ing of  the  Depository  with  other  works  than  those 
issued  by  the  Society,  is  under  the  direction  of  a 
Committee  of  that  Board.  But  in  the  case  of  the 
Review  no  orders  whatever  were  given  by  the 
Board,  nor  by  the  Committee  respecting  the  sale 
of  it  at  first,  or  the  discontinuance  of  it.  I  receiv- 
ed and  sold  the  copies  that  were  left  with  me 
on  my  own  responsibility,  and  declined  receiving 
any  more  upon  the  same,  and  by  that  responsibi- 
lity I  am  willing  to  stand. 

A.  S.  LANGLEY, 

Assistant  at  the  Depository  of  the  Bap.  Gen.  Tract  Society. 
Philadelphia,  Sept.  5th  1833. 


CONTROVERSY N( 


33. 


Is  ihc  Protestant  Religion  tke  Religion  off  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  September  13M,  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge, 

Rev.  Sir, — "Mr.  Breckinridge  sai/sthat  "the  Protes- 
tant is  the  religion  of  Christ." 

If  so,  I  call  upon  him  1st.  To  tell  me  what  the  Protes- 
tant, religion  is  ? 

2.  I  cull  upon  him  to  say  what  society  of  Chris- 
tians ever  taught  this  pretended  "  religion  of 
Christ"  previous  to  the  Reformation  ? 

3.  I  call  upon  him  to  sua,  whether  Christ  revealed 
am,  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant,  religion,  be- 
ginning with  the  best  image  of  his  church,  Epis- 
copaliauism,  and  terminating  with  the  most  eon- 
si  stmt  of  Protestant  sects,  the  Unitarians? — 
and  if  not,  how  many  denominations  out  of  the 
whole  belong  to  the  true  Protestant  religion, 
the  religion  of  Christ  ? 

4.  /  call  upon  him  to  show  whether  the  Reformers 
received  any  new    ministerial  authority,   after 


tell  me  thai,  you  "are  ashamed  (perhaps  not  with- 
out reason)  to  he  dragged  before  the  public  in 
such  company."  Do  you  forget  that  your  con- 
troversial challenge  was  addressed  to  "  Priests 
and  Bishops,"  and  that  you  condescended  to 
admit  my  claims  as  a  "responsible  correspon- 
dent." /■ 

Again,  as  regards  what  you  call  "  supersti- 
tion," you  compare  Catholics  with  "Hindoos." 
Now  the  Catholics  (accustomed  to  insult,)  can 
forgive  you  this,  but  Protestants  themselves 
will  say  there  is  no  argument  in  such  phrases. 

Again,  since  you  have  sent  your  "friend  to 
the  Atheneeum,"  when  (and  perhaps  because)  I 
did  not  expect  him,  it  is  but  fair  that  he  and 
you  should  have  another  and  a  better  opportu- 
nity. 

He  it  known,  therefore,  that,  a  reward  of  five  hundred 
dollars  is  hereby  offered,  to  any  friend  of  Mr.  Breckin- 


the  withdrawal  of  that  which  they  had  received  i  ri,,?e,  or  a"V  other  person,  who  shall  Jind,  in  the  10th 
from  the  church  ?  |  volume  of  the  writings  of  Baronius,  a  certain  quotation, 


f> 

5.  /  call  upon  him,  in  case  no  such  new  authority 
was  received,  to  show  that  the  Protestant  clergy, 
so  called,  have  any  divine  right  to  exercise  the 
Christina  ministry,  more  than  other  educated 
laymen  /." 

You  will  not  he  surprised  that  the  five  "stale 
questions,"  should  still  stand  at  the  head  of  my 


which  he,  the  said  Mr.  Breckinridge  published  with  in- 
verted commas,  in  Letter  No.  XXX.  of  the  pending 
controversy ;  and  which  he,  the  said  Mr.  Breckinridge, 
professed  to  have  found  in,  and  taken  from  the  said 
10th  volume.  If  Mr.  Espy,  Mr.  Parker,  Teachers  of 
languages,  and  Mr.  MEihenny,  {all  Protestants)  or 
any  two  Professors  of  languages  in  any  College,  in 
America,    shall    attest    that    said   passage   has    been 


letters,  as  I  shall  show  in  the  sequel,  that  .you  |  found,  the  subscriber  hereby  binds  himsetf  to  pay  five 
have  not  answered  any  of  them;  and  moreover,  \  hundred  dollars to  the  finder.  The  said  li)th  volume 
that  they  cannot  be  answered  to  the  satisfaction  \°f  Baronius  shall  remain  at  the  Aihenre.am,  open  for 
of  any  dispassionate  or  reasonable  mind.  |  inspection  during  one  week  after  the  publication  of  these 

With   regard  to  the  authority  of  Thuanns  and    presents. 
Dupin,  as  Catholic  writers,  it  is  rejected  for  rea-  j      Now,  Rev'd  Sir,  let  "your  friend"  get  ready, 
sons  which  I  have  already  stated  ;  and  from  the    whilst  I  proceed  to  notice  whatever  deserves  to 
fact  of  its   rejection  you   are  at  liberty  to  draw    be  noticed  in  your  letter,  of  which  by  the  way, 
your  inferences  as  you  think  proper.  ■  the  continued  perversions  of  authorities  form  the 

In  reference  to  Baronius,  I  had  simply  accused  principal  part. 
you  of  falsifying  the  text  in  your  quotation.  I  The  case  of  Bellarmine  you  still  affect  not  to 
supposed  then,  thntyou  did  it  through  ignorance;  I  understand.  I  have  explained  and  vindicated  it 
but  the  book  has  since  been  laid  open  to  public  in-  j  in  my  last  lelter,  and  to  that  explanation  I  refer 
spection,  and  you  have  the  courage  still  to  repeat:  the  reader.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  in  every 
what  every  scholar  who  examined  the  original,  J  letter  to  extricate  my  arguments  and  reasonings 
must  acknowledge  to  be  untrue.  \  from  the  confusion  in  which  it  may  suit  your  con- 

In  my  postscript  I  shall  give  the  translation  of  j  veniencc  to  involve  what  you  cannot  answer  or 
Baronius;  so- that  even  the  uneducated  may  see  !  refute.  Touching  the.  "licence  to  commit  sin,", 
what  must  be  your  situation,  when  you  first  the  Protestant  indulgence  which  I  pointed  out  in 
quote  falsely,  and  being  advised  of  it,  repeat  the  ;  your  "Confession  of  Faith,"  you  have  thought  fit 
assertion,  under  circumstances  which  go  far,  to  be  silent..  It  was  not  founded  on  the  case  of 
as  I  shall  show,  to  prove  that  you  must  have  adultery;  but  on  the  liberty  to  obtain  a  divorce  and 
known  it  was  unfounded.  I  marry  another  wife  or  husband,  in  consequence  of 

But,  Rev'd  Sir,  I  hope  you  will  not  be  offend-  such  "wilful  desertion  (by  the  true  wife  or  hus- 
ed,  if  I  direct  your  attention  to  some  things  in  band)  as  can  in  noway  be  remedied  by  the  church 
your  letter,  which  can  hardly  fail  to  be  regarded  or  magistrate."  Here  there  is  no  mention  of 
even  by  your  friends,  as  a  reprehensible  want  of  "  adultery" — "  wilful  desertion"  is  recognied  as 
courtesy  on  your  part.  For  example,  when  you  sufficient  to  authorise  Polygamy  !  !  This  is  pretty 
o* 


•27i& 


moralily.  Neither  is  it  the  opinion  of  hidrvklu- 
als.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
proposed  in  her  Standard  of  1821.  Does  the 
Scripture  say  any  thing  of"  this  case  of"  wilful  de- 
sertion," and  yet  your  ministers  are  obliged  to  re- 
ceive the  "  standard"  as  the  summary  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, 

As  to  the  intolerance  of  Presby let ianism,  I  estab- 
lished it  by  logical  demonstration  in  a  way  which 
bids  defiance  to  all  your  gratuitous  assertions  to 
the  contrary.  As  long  as  my  arguments  r^re  un- 
answered, I  need  not  return  to  the  subject.  You 
say  it  is  liberal,  I  have  proved  the  contrary  from 
its  own  standard  testimony.  I  am  content  there- 
fore to  leave  tbe  matter  as  it  is. 

The  same  observation  applies  to  your  review  of 
my  arguments  on  the  Eucharist.  Not  a  single 
argument  of  mine  have  you  touched  ;  not  a  single 
authority  have  you  disputed.  You  had  appealed 
to  Scripture.  I  showed  that  Scripture  positively 
slates  the  Catholic  dogma,  as  it  is  believed  in  the 
church.  You  had  appealed  to  the  fathers.  I 
showed  that  all  the  fathers  of  the  first  six  hundred 
years  believed  and  taught  with  the  church  and 
with  the  Scriptures.  You  had  appealed  to  reason 
and  the  senses.  1  showed  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  like  other 
mysteries,  is  believed  by  virtue  of  Revelation.  And 
that  having  been  revealed,  it  rests,  not.  on  the  testi- 
mony of  reason,  or  what  you  call  by  that  name,  but 
on  the  omnipotence  and  veracity  of  God.  With  Cod 
it  is  perfectly  reasonable.  But  I  have  so  little 
cause  to  be  dissatisfied  with  your  late  production, 
that  I  willingly  leave  the  matter  to  the  sincere  judg- 
ment of  our  readers.  Let  them  compare  letter  with 
letter  and  see  whether  a  single  difficulty  has  been 
raised  by  you,  not  excepting  the  dcistical  sophisms 
which  you  have  introduced,  that  lias  not  been  an- 
swered or  anticipated  in  the  arguments  of  my  last. 

For  the  information  of  the  reader,  however,  I 
shall  make  a  few  remarks  by  way  of  explanation. 
I  have  already  observed,  that,  in  the  primitive 
church  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  was  concealed 
from  Jews,  Pagans,  and  even  Catechumens,  until 
after  their  initiation  by  the  sacrament  of  Baptism. 
This  practice  was  derived  from  the  doctrine  of  Je- 
sus Christ  directing  that  holy  things  should  not 
be  given  to  dogs,  nor  pearls,  placed  before  swine 
(Math.  vii.  6.) 

It  was  derived  from  his  practice  :  "To  you,  he 
said,  is  given  to  know  the  mysteries  ol  the  king- 
dom of  God,  but  to  the  rest  in  parables.''''  (Luke 
viii.  10.)  And  again  "I  have  many  things  to  say 
to  yoii,  but  you  cannot  bear  them  now."  (Jolnrxvi. 
12.)  So  also  after  his  resurrection,  "  He  opened 
their  understanding,  that  they  might  understand 
the  Scripture."  (Luke  xxiv.  45.)  In  the  Acts, 
the  celebration  of  the  mysteries  of  the  Eucharist 
is  referred  to,  in  a  way  which  indicates  that  it  was 
not  to  be  exposed  to  the  Jews  or  Pagans  "  con- 
tinuing daily  in  the  temple,  and  breaking;  bread, 
from  house  to  house,  they  took  their  meat,  with 
gladness  and  simplicity  of  heart."  (ii.  18.)  "And 
It  came  to  pass,  whilst  they  were  at  table  with 
him  (after  the  resurrection)  he  took  bread  and 
blessed,  and  brako  and  gave  to  them and  how 


they  knew  him  in  the  breaking  of  bread*"  (Luke 
xxiv.  30  and  35.)  So  in  like  manner  St.  Paul — 
"  And  1,  brethren,  could  not  speak  to  you  as  to 
spiritual,  but  as  to  carnal.  As  to  little  ones  in 
Christ,  I  gave  you  milk  to  drink,  not  meat :  for 
you  were  not  able  as  yet  :  but  neither  are  you  now 
able:  for  you  are  yet  carnal."  (1  Cor.  iii.  1,  2.)" 
Thus  Justin  Martyr  in  his  "Dialogue  with  Trypho"" 
the  Jew,  refers  to  the  Eucharist  as  the  sacrifice 
of  the  new  law,  spoken  of  by  Malachy,  of  bread' 
and  wine  in  commemoration  of  Christ's  passion, 
because  the  mystery  of  that  sacrifice  was  not  to  be 
exposed  to  Jews.  We  have  the  testimony  of  Cle- 
mens Alex.  (lib.  1.  Stromatum,)  of  Tertulliaiv 
(Apol.  c.  7.  and  lib.  2.  ad  uxorem,)  of  Origen 
(Horn.  9.  in  Caput.  16  Lev.  No.  10.)  of  the  Apos- 
tolical Constitutions  (lib.  3.  cap.  5.)  of  St.  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem,  (Pref.  ad  Catech.  No.  12.)  of  St. 
Basil  (lib.  de  Spir.  s.  c.  27.  No.  GO.)  In  short,  of 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Epiphani- 
us,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Augustine,  St.  Cyril  of 
Alex.  Theodoret,  of  all  the  fathers  to  prove  that  in 
their  discourses  to  mixed  assemblies,  while  either 
Pagans,  Jews  or  even  Catechumens  were  present, 
they  spoke  of  the  holy  Eucharist  with  caution  and 
concealment,  so  that  whilst  the  faithful,  who  wene 
initiated,  knew  the  mystery,  the  knowledge  of  it 
should  be  withheld  from  the  profane,  lest  being 
as  they  were  carnal,  thej'  should  be  scandalized' 
and  scoff  at  it,  as  Protestants  do  now.  They  said 
in  the  figurative  language  of  our  blessed  Redeem- 
er, that  holy  things  were  not  to  be  given  to  dogs, 
nor  pearls  cast  before  swine.  It  was  on  such  oc- 
casions they  used  those  ambiguous  expressions,  by 
which  Protestant  books  and  Protestant  ministers 
would  persuade  the  people  that  the  fathers  did  not 
believe  the  Eucharist  to  he  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Hear  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  "  We  de- 
clare not  to  the  Gentiles  the  hidden  mysteries  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  nor  do  we 
speak  openly  of  the  mysteries  the  Catechumens: 
but  we  frequently  employ  obscure  expressions,  that 
they  may  be  understood  by  those  who  are  already 
instructed,  and  that  the  uninstructed  may  not  be  in- 
jured by  them."  (Catech.  vi.  No.  29.)  It  is  of 
these  "  obscure  expressions"  that  Protestants  take 
advantage,  when  they  would  persuade  the  people 
that  the  fathers  beleived  in  mere  bread  and  wine. 
But  I  showed  in  m)r  last  letter  the  doctrine  of  the 
fathers  and  of  the  primitive  church,  by  their  in- 
structions to  the  faithful  initiated,  in  which  there 
was  no  necessity  for  concealment,  and  in  which, 
they  consequently  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  real 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  in 
the  Eucharist,  so  strongly  and.  so  unequivocally  that 
no  Protestant  minister  would  dare  la  repeat  their 
expressions  in  his  pulpit. 

Now  I  maintain  that  this  very  concealment  of 
the  Eucharist  from  Pagans,  Jews  and  Catechu- 
mens is  by  itself  a  powerful  proof  of  the  Catholic 
doctrine.  For  in  the  first  place,  if  it  were  mere 
bread  and  wine,  what  motive  could  there  exist  to 
conceal  it]  2.  When  they  were  accused  of 
"murdering  a  child,  and  feasting  on  its  flesh  in 
their  assemblies,"  it  would  have  been  easy  and 
natural  to  refute  the  calumny,  and  say  that  it  was 


273 


merely  a  ///7/ebread  and  wine  they  took  figuratively 
in  memory  of  Christ's  body  and  death.  But  this 
they  never  said  ;  even  when  they  were  tortured,  as 
was  sometimes  thecase,  to  force  them  intoa  confes- 
sion of  what  it  was!  3.  They  would  not  have 
celebrated  the  Eucharist  with  doors  inviolably 
closed,  for  even  the  High  Priest  would  not  be 
scandalized,  at  seeing  them  eat  bread  and  drink 
wine;  though  he  might  be,  if  he  saw  them  adoring 
the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  as  they 
invariably  did  (see  my  last  letter")  before  they  re- 
ceived it.  But  their  positive  testimony,  when 
speaking  to  the  faithful  alone,  leaves  no  room  to 
doubt  on  the  subject.  So  much  so  that  Zuinglius, 
in  reading  the  Fathers,  acknowledges  that  on 
every  page  in  which  they  referred  to  it,  he  found 
nothing  but  "  bread  of  life"  fa 'flesh  of  Christ," 
"  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'''' 

How  well  then,  would  it  be  for  Protestants  and 
their  ministers,  to  hearken  to  the  beautiful  advice 
of  St.  Chrysostom.  "  Let  us  believe  God  in  all 
things,  and  gainsay  him  not,  although  what  he 
says  appears  to  be  contrary  to  the  testimony  of  our 
eyes  and  our  reason.  Let  the  authority  of  his 
word  supercede  the  testimony  of  our  eyes  and  our 
reason.  Since  therefore,  his  word  said,  "  this  is 
my  body,"  let  us  rest  satisfied  and  believe,  let  us 
behold  it  with  the  eyes  of  faith."  (Horn.  iv.  in 
Joan). 

The  principal  exception  which  you  make  to 
the  arguments  of  my  last  letter,  is  that  "  admitting 
some  of  the  Fathers  to  be  for  the  real  presence," 
I  have  not  their  unanimous  consent.  I  answer, 
that  I  have.  They  all  taught,  and  believed,  as 
Catholics  do.  But  say  you,  St.  Augustine  tells  ns 
that  "  when  the  Scripture  seems  to  command  a 
ivicked  thing  it  is  to  be  understood  figuratively. 
Thus  of  the  words  '  unless  you  eat  the  flesh,  &c." 
Answer.  In  this  St.  Augustine  speaks  not  of  the 
substance  of  the  Eucharist.  He  speaks  of  the 
action  or  manner  in  which  the  flesh  of  Christ  was 
to  be  received.  If  the  Jews  understood  the  pre- 
ceutfo  eat,  in  the  literal-or  natural  sense,  it  would 
lead  to  a  wicked  consequence,  viz.  tearing  the 
flesh  from  the  bones  of  Christ  and  so  eating  it. 
He  points  out  the  error  of  the  Capharnaites  :  they 
understood  Christ  to  speak  of  his  flesh,  in  this 
they  were  right,  but  they  imagined  that  it  was  to 
be  eaten,  in  the  g>-oss  r/tantoer  of  human,  natural 
flesh,  instead  of  the  supernatural  manner,  in  which 
it  exists  in  the  Euchurist,  and  he  showed,  that  in 
the  former  sense  "  the  Scripture  would  seem  to 
command  a  wicked  thing,"  and  in  so  much  was 
not  to  be  understood  literally.  How  you  could 
have  read  the  passage  and  not  know  this,  or  know- 
ing not  mention  it,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive. 
But  read  the  testimonies  from  St.  Augustine  in 
my  last  letter,  and  you  will  be  compelled  to  ac- 
knowledge, in  your  own  mind  at  least,  that  he  was 
the  believer  and  adorer  of  Christ's  body  in  the  Eu- 
charist. 

Again  you  quote  Tertullian.  But  the  context 
shows  that  you  pervert  him.  The  scope  of  his 
passage  is  to  show  that,  according  to  the  Prophet 
Jeremias,  bread  had  been  the  ancient  "  figure,"  of 
Christ's   body.     To   prove   this,    he  quotes   the 


words  of  the  institution  to  show  that  the  figure  of 
the  prophet  had  received  its  fulfilment,  adding  im- 
mediately, the  words  which  you  suppress,  "  figu- 
ra  auteinnon  faisset,  nisi  veritatis  esset  Corpus," 
that  is,  "  but  it  (the  bread)  would  not  have  been  a 
figure,  if  it  (the  holy  Eucharist)  were  not  the 
body  in  truth. P     Why  did  you  mistranslate  this  1 

You  mention  Erasmus  as  asserting  that  until 
the  year  "  1215"  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Eu- 
charist was  a  disputed  point.  You  give  no 
quotation,  but  I  shall,  to  show  how  far  you  have 
injured  him  by  the  assertion.  "  Since  the  an- 
cients," says  he,  "to  whom  the  church,  not  with- 
out reason,  gives  so  much  authority,  are  all  agreed 
in  the  belief,  that  the  true  substance  of  the  body, 
and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  is  in  the  Eucharist: 
since,  in  addition  to  all  this,  has  been  added 
the  constant  authority  of  the  Synods,  and  so 
perfect  an  agreement  of  the  Christian  world,  let 
us  also  agree  with  them  in  this  heavenly  mys- 
tery, and  let  us  receive  here  below,  the  bread 
and  the  chalice  of  the  Lord  under  the  veil  of  the 
species,  until  weeat  and  drink  him  without  veil  in 
the  kingdom  of  God.  And  would  that  those,  who 
followed  Beringarius  in  his  error,  would  follow 
him  in  his  repentance."  (Prcef.  in  Tract.  deEuch.) 
Is  this  the  language  of  a  man  who  held  that  the 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  was  a  disputed 
point  till  the  year  "  1215  !"  We  should  have  had 
another  article  in  our  rules,  couched  in  something 
like  the  following  terms  :  "  It  is  understood  be- 
tween the  parties,  that  Mr.  Breckinridge  shall 
make  as  many  unfounded  assertions  and  false  quo- 
tations as  confidence,  without  experience,  may  dic- 
tate ;  and  that  Mr.  Hughes  shall  have  nothing  to 
do,  hut  go  after  him  and  refute  them." 

In  your  quotation  from  Epiphanius  (In  Aneio- 
rat,)  you  again  suppress  the  part  that  goes  against 
you.  He  was  showing  that  man  is  made  after  the 
likeness  of  God,  although  the  resemblance  is  not 
perceptible  to  the  senses.  This  he  shows  by  com- 
parison with  what  appears  to  the  senses  in  the  Eu- 
charist. It  does  not  sensibly  resemble  the  body  of 
Christ.  But  referring  in  the  very  next  sentence  to 
the  words  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  institution  of  the 
Eucharist,  he  says  "there  is  no  one  who  does  not 
believe  them;  fir  he  that  does  not  believe  it  to  be 
himself  truly,  (ipsiini  vei'um)  falls  from  grace  and 
sa/vu/ion."     Why  was  this  suppressed? 

Did  the  Fathers  believe  that  the  body  of  Christ 
cannot  be  in  two  places  at  once'?  So  says  Mr. 
Breckinridge:  but  hear  St.  Chrysostom.  "Wo 
always  offer  the  same  victim,  (here  is  the  sacrifice) 
not  as  in  the  old  law,  sometimes  one  and  some- 
times another  :  but  here  it  is  always  the  same,  for 
which  reason  there  is  but  one  sacrifice;  for  if  the 
diversify  of  places,  in  which  the  sacrifice,  is  offer- 
ed, mutiplied  the  sacrifice,  v  e  should  have  to  al- 
low that  there  were  many  Christs,  But  there  is 
but  one  Christ,  who  is  entire  here,  and  entire  there, 
possessing  still  but  one  body  :  for  which  reason 
there  is  but  one  sacrifice.''''  (Horn,  in  Epist.  ad 
Hcebr.) 

This  language,  Rev.  Sir,  indicates  the  true  be- 
lief of  the  real  presence  as  it  is  in  the  church,  and 
as  it  was  from  the    beginning   of  Christianity. 


374 


Carlostadius,  however,  originated  a  contrary  doc- 
trine or  rather  opinion,  and  Protestants  go  with 
Carlostadius.  It  is  the  belief  of  a  mystery  ;  no- 
thing greater,  however,  than  what  Protestants 
who  beLeve  the  Scriptures,  'acknowledge  respect- 
ing the  presence  of  Christ's  body  on  the  way  to 
Damascus,  or  its  entrance  into  a  closed  apart- 
ment. The  latter  difficulty  you  have  solved  by 
an  explanation  which  may  be  original,  but  it  is 
not  very  ingenious.  "  Christ  could  remove  out  of 
the  wall  or  door,  space  for  his  body  to  enter  by, 
and  then  close  it  up  again"  ! !  This  of  course 
explains  the  mystery. 

When  you  take  offence  at  "Omnipotence  wrap- 
ped in  swaddling  clothes,"  you  forget  that  I  quo- 
ted  the  expression  from  a  Protectant  sermon! 

On  the  couplet  of  Watts, 

"This  infant  is  (lie  Almighly  God 
Come  to  be  suckled  and  adored," 

you  make  no  comment.  But  when  you  come 
out  boldly,  and  proclaim  that  to  adore  Jesus 
Christ  as  man,  "would  be  gross  idolatry," 
you  show  the  downward  tendency  of  Protestant- 
ism. Protestants  generally,  adore  Jesus  Christ 
without  distinguishing  between  his  divine,  and 
human  nature,  which  are  hypostatically  and  inse- 
parably united  in  the  person  of  Christ.  Your 
separation  of  them  savours  strongly  of  Nesiorian- 
ism ,-  and  I  should  not  answer  for  your  safety  if 
you  had  proclaimed  this  "  idolatry"  in  Geneva, 
during  Calvin's  days.  All  the  "  Old  School" 
Protestants  have  acknowledged  that  if  the  body 
of  Christ  be  in  the  Eucharist,  it  is  to  be  adored 
in  it.  This  is  precisely  the  point  which  Beza 
and  the  first  Calvinists  urged  against  the  Luther- 
ans, who  taught  the  real  presence,  and  yet  did 
not  require  adoration.  (Beza  de  Ccena  Dom.  p. 
270.)  (Balaeus  in  Exam.  Recit.  p.  220.)  And 
Chemnitius,  himself  a  Lutheran,  says:  "There 
is  no  one  doubts  but  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  to 
be  adored  in  the  Supper,  unless  he  who  doubts 
or  denies  with  the  Sacramentarians  that  Christ  is 
really  present  in  the  Supper."  (Exam.  Con. 
Trid.  Sess.  31.  c.  v.) 

Still  a  "new  light"  has  beamed  on  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge, and  he  has  discovered  that  these  Protes- 
tants and  all  who  believe  with  us  that  the  body  is 
to  be  adored  wherever  it  is,  no  less  than  his  di- 
vinity, "are  gross  idolaters."  Then  the  Reformers 
were  idolaters.  What  will  the  Unitarians,  Rev. 
Sir,  say  to  all  this  1  Will  they  not  begin  to  look 
upon  you,  as  one  of  their  own  ]  Although  I  am 
persuaded  that  you  are  not. 

You  once  threatened  us  with  the  testimony  of 
the  ancient  Liturgies,  on  the  subject  of  the  Eu- 
charist; but  you  have  withheld  them  on  second 
reflection,  having  been  admonished,  probably, 
by  some  one  more  correctly  informed,  that  you 
were  treading  on  dangerous  ground.  There  is 
one,  however,  the  Syrian  Liturgy  of  the  "Chris- 
tians of  St.  Thomas,"  (Protestants  if  we  may  be- 
lieve Mr.  B.)  to  which  you  invite  my  attention. 
By  this  I  understand  you  to  give  up  the  others, 
and  if  so,  you  are  wise. 

About  the  year    1500  the  Portuguese  having 


doubled  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  penetrated  into 
India,  and  to  their  amazement  these  Christians 
of  St.  Thomas,  were  found  on  the  coast  of  Mala- 
bar. This  was  reported  in  Europe,  and  gave  rise 
to  much  speculation  ;  but  unfortunately  it  was 
made  known  that  their  faith  had  been  corrupted 
by  the  errors  of  Nestorianism.  They  were  here- 
tics; and  the  Reformers,  who  had  just  separated 
from  the  faith  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world, 
took  it  into  their  heads  that,  of  course,  they  were 
Protestants.  La  Croze,  a  Protestant,  wrote  a 
treatise  to  maintain  this  supposition,  under  the 
title  of  "  History  of  Christianity  in  India."  But 
Assemini  (Biblioth.  Orient.  Tom.  4.  c.  7.  §  13.) 
refuted  La  Croze's  book  and  convicted  him  as 
usual  in  such  cases,  of  twelve  or  thirteen  gross 
misrepresentations.  Their  errors  were  condemn- 
ed by  the  Catholic  Archbishop  of  Goa,  but  the 
denial  of  the  real  presence  was  not  among  them. 
In  their  Liturgy  to  which  Mr.  B.  refers,  are  found 
the  following  words  : 

"With  hearts  full  of  respect  and  fear,  let  us 
all  approach  the  mystery  of  the  precious  body  and 

blood  of  our  Saviour and  now,  O  Lord,   that 

thou  hast  called  me  to  thy  holy  and  pure  altar, 
to  offer  unto  thee  this  living  and  holy  sacrifice, 
make  me  worthy  to  receive  this  gift  with  purity 
and  holiness."  At  the  communion  the  Priest 
says,  "  O  Lord,  my  God !  I  am  not  worthy, 
neither  is  it  becoming  that  I  should  partake  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  propitiation,  or  even  so  much 
as  touch  them.  But  may  thy  word  sanctify  my 
soul  and  heal  my  body."  In  the  thanksgiving 
after  communion  he  says,  "  strengthen  my 
hands    which    are    stretched    out   to  receive    the 

holy  one. Repair  by  a  new  life,  the  bodies 

which   have  just   been  feeding  on  thy  living  body. 
......God  has  loaded   us   with   blessings  by  his 

living  Son,  who  for  our  salvation  descended  from 
the  highest  heavens,  clothed  himself  with  our 
flesh,  has  given  his  own  flesh,  and  mixed  his 
venerable  blood  with  our  blood,  a  mystery  of  pro- 
pitiation."    (Renaudot's  Latin  translation.) 

Such  is  the  language  of  the  Lituroy  of  those 
"  Christians  of  St.  Thomas,"  to  whom  Mr.  B. 
has  referred  as  holding  the  Protestant  doctrine  of 
mere  bread  and  wine!  The  Catholic  missiona- 
ries among  them  had  nothing  to  correct  in  their 
belief  of  the  real  presence.  And  to  show  what 
kind  of  Protestants  they  were,  it  is  sufficient  to 
state  that  they  believed  in  the  remission  of  sins 
by  the  Priest's  absolution;  held  three  Sacra- 
ments, Baptism,  Holy  order,  and  the  Eucharist; 
and  taught  that  in  Christ  there  were  two  persons, 
the^divine,  and  human:  that  the  divinity  dwelt 
in  Jesus,  as  in  a  temple.  Are  these  the  doc- 
trines of  Protestants  ]  So  much  for  those  pure 
and  unpopish  Christians  of  St.  Thomas  and  their 

LITURGY. 

When  you  say  that  Christ  commanded  the  cup, 
and  that  we  "nullify,"  the  Sacrament,  you  must 
have  forgotten,  that  in  my  Letter  No.  XXIX, 
1  gave,  besides  other,  and  better  proofs,  the  Pro- 
testant authority  of  a  Presbyterian  Synod  in 
France,  and  an  act  of  British  Parliament,  to 
prove  the  contrary.     Read,  I  pray  you,  the  argu- 


275 


merits  tliere  adduced,  and  either  answer  them,  or 
be  silent.  Assertions  are  cheap,  and  cost  too 
little  to  deserve  that  I  should  repeat  the  same 
arguments  and  authorities,  as  often  as  you  make 
them. 

In  refuting  your  attempt  to  answer  the  "stale 
questions,"  I  shall  have  occasion  to  show  how  far 
the  unsuspecting  Protestant  reader  is  liable  to  be 
led  astray  by  your  representations.  1.  To  the 
question  "  what  is  the  Protestant  religion,"  you 
answer  as  before,  "  it  is  the  religion  of  the  Refor- 
mation." This  is  no  definition,  unless  we  know 
what  the  religion  of  the  Reformation  is.  When 
you  enumerate,  in  anotber  part  of  your  letter,  the 
denominations  that  constitute  "  the  Protestant  re- 
ligion," you  expose  the  definition.  For  if  "Epis- 
copalians, Lutherans,  Moravians,  Baptists,  Me- 
thodists, Congregationalists,  and  Presbyterians" 
constitute  "  the  religion  of  Christ;"  then,  "  the 
religion  of  Christ"  should  be  made  up  of  contra- 
dictions!.' Did  Christ  infuse  such  contradictions 
into  his  religion  ]  To  say  that  "  it  is  exclusively 
derived  from  the  Bible,  as  the  only  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,"  is  not  a  definition;  but  an 
assertion,  which  remains  to  be  proved,  and  the  truth 
of  which,  I  utterly  deny.  Every  sect  claims  the 
Scripture  for  its  notions.  This  you  admit,  and 
ask  whether  "  claims  are  facts," — "  whether 
"  false  claims  destroy  true  ones  V  I  answer  No, 
and  therefore  "the  false  claims"  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, could  not  destroy  the  true  claims  of  the 
Catholic  church.  She  was,  and  had  been,  from 
the  beginning  of  Christianity,  in  possession  of 
the  Scriptures  and  their  meaning.  So  that  turn 
it  as  you  will,  every  new  aspect  only  shows  more 
clearly  that  "  the  Protestant  religion"  mocks  the 
powers  of  definition.     What  is  it] 

In  reply  to  my  second  question,  you  say  that 
"every  society  of  Christians  on  earth  from  the 
days  of  the  apostles  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  held 
the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  religion."  Here 
there  is  something  tangible,  and  since  you  appeal 
to  the  test  of  comparison,  between  Protestant  and 
primitive  doctrines,  I  shall  try  you  by  it.  The 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  and  ancient  liturgies  were  all 
Protestant,  you  have  told  us.  Then  of  course 
you  will  have  no  objection  to  correct  your  doc- 
trine, if  it  should  happen  to  be  different  from 
theirs.  Liturgy  of  Jerusalem — "  We  offer  thee 
O  Lord,  this  tremendous  and  unet.oody  sacri- 
fice." "Send  down  thy  most  holy  Spirit  on  us 
and  on  these  holy  gifts;  that  he,  by  his  holy, 
kind  and  glorious  presence,  may  make  this 
bread  the  holy  body  of  Jesus  Christ"  Answer, 
"  Amen."  "  And  this  chalice  the  precious  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ."  Answer,  "  Amen."  Is  this 
the  doctrine  of  our  modern  Protestants  on  the  sa- 
crifice of  Mass1?  No.  They  call  it  a  "  blasphe- 
mous fable." 

The  Liturgy  of  Constantinople.  At  the  com- 
munion the  deacon  says,  "  Father,  give  me  the 
holy  and  precious  body  of  our  God  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ."  The  priest  in  giving  it  says,  "  I 
do  give  thee  the  precious,  holy,  and  most  imma- 
culate body  of  the  Lord  God,  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  eternal  life." 


The  deacon  then  confesses  his  unworthiness,  and 
concludes  with  these  words,  "  O  Thou  !  who  art 
goodness  itself  forgive  all  my  sins,  through  the 
intercession  of  thy  unspotted  and  ever  Virgin  Mo- 
ther." 

Here  is  the  intercession  of  saints  in  addition  to 
the  sacrifice  and  the  adoration,  as  marked  in  the 
same  page.  Are  these  the  doctrines  of  our  mod- 
ern Protestants  ; — yet  Mr.  B.  claimed  the  Litur- 
gies !  !  The  one  just  quoted  from,  ascribed  te  St. 
Chrysostom,  is  used  by  the  western  Greeks, 
Mingrellians  and  Georgians,  by  the  Bulgarians, 
Russians,  Muscovites  and  all  the  Melchile  Chris- 
tians. 

The  Alexandrian  and  Coptic  Liturgy,  used  by 
the  Jacobite  Copts  of  the  east  for  more  than  1200 
years,  at  the  oblation  has: — "  O  Lord  Jesus 
Christ...  bless  this  bread  and  this  chalice,  which 
we  have  placed  on  the  sacerdotal  table:  sanctify 
them,  consecrate  them  and  change  them  in  such 
manner,  that  this  bread  may  become  the  holy  body, 
and  that  what  h  mixed  in  the  chalice,  may  be- 
come thy  precious  blood.''''  A  little  before  the 
communion,  the  people  prostrate  and  adore  it. 
At  the  profession  of  faith,  the  priest  says:  "This 
is  the  most  hoi}'  body,  and  the  pure  and  precious 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  This  is, 
in  truth,  the  body  and  blood  of  Emmanuel  our 
God.  Amen.  I  believe,  I  believe,  I  believe, 
and  I  confess  to  the  last  breath  of  life,  that  this 
is  the  life-giving  body  of  thine  only  begotten 
Son. "••••Is  it  thus  that  modern  Protestants  "  be- 
lieve?'1'' This  liturgy  goes  back  GOO  years  before 
"  1215,"  and  900  before  the  Reformation.  It  is 
the  testimony  of  our  adversaries — who  erred  on 
other  points  and  were  cut  off  from  the  church. 

The  Liturgy  of  St.  James  (Syriac  version,) 
"  Bless  us,  O  Lord,  by  this  holy  oblation,  this 
propitiatory  sacrifice,''''  which  we  offer  to  God««»» 
a  "blasphemous  fable"  says  Mr.  Breckinridge, 
which  I  proved  b_y  referring  to  the  Fathers  before 
the  Council  of  Nice,  and  to  "  the  ancient  Litur- 
gies.'/.'" 

As  for  those  "  Christians  of  St.  Thomas."  in 
India,  their  doctrine  on  the  Eucharist  i3  the  Ca- 
tholic doctrine  as  we  have  seen.  But  besides 
that,  they  venerated  the  crucifix,  made  the  sign 
of  the  cross,  fasted  from  food  on  certain  days,  and 
abstained  from  meat  on  others,  celebrated  festi- 
vals in  honour  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  and  prayed 
for  the  dead.  (Le  Brun.  Tom.  III.  Dis.  xi.  Art. 
15.)  They  hold  not  therefore  the  doctrines  of 
Protestantism.  The  learned  Protestants  Grotius, 
(votum  pro  pace,)  and  Bishop  Bull,  (vol.  i.  p. 
342.)  give  up  the  Liturgies,  as  far  as  Protestant- 
ism is  concerned,  and  the  few  extracts  here  made, 
show  they  were  as  correct  as  they  were  candid. 
Still  Mr.  Breckinridge  asserted  "that  there  was 
not  one  word  of  truth''''  in  my  statement  touching 
the  ancient  Liturgies.  If  I  have  proved  the  con- 
trary, the  reader  will  appreciate  the  veracity  and 
politeness  of  my  opponent,  as  they  deserve. 

Let  us  now  glance  at  the  Protestant  Fathers 
before  the  Council  of  Nice.  Take  for  example 
the  invocation  of  Saints;  and  let  us  hear  Origen. 
"O  ye  saints  of  heaven,  I  beseech  you  with  sor- 


976 


rowful  sighs  and  tears,  fall  ye  at  the  Feet  of 
the  Lord  of  mercies  for  me  a  miserable  sinner." 
(Origen  Lament.)  Would  Mr.  Breckinridge  join 
in  prayer  with  this  (Protestant'?)  Father? 

Irenaeus.  "As  Eve  was  seduced  to  fly  from 
•God,  so  was  the  Virgin  Mary  induced  to  obey 
him,  that  she  might  become  the  advocate  of  her 
that  had  fallen."  (Adver.  Hoeres.  L.  V.  c.  19.) 

On  the  subject  of  Tradition,  and  the  Scriptures, 
let  ue  see  if  they  agree  with  the  doctrine  of  mo- 
dern Protestants.  Hear  St.  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, (second  century.)  "  They  (Heretics,)  make 
use  indeed  of  the  Scriptures  ;  but  then  they  use 
not  all  the  sacred  books  ;  those  they  use  are  cor- 
rupted ;  or  they  chiefly  use  ambiguous  passages. 
They  corrupt  those  truths  which  a^iee  with  the 
inspired  word,  and  were  delivered  by  the  holy  Apos- 
tles and  teachers,  opposing  the  divine  tradition  by 
human  doctrines,  that  they  may  establish  heresy. 
But  it  is  clear  from  what  has  been  said,  that 
there  is  only  one  true  Church,  which  is  alone  an- 
cient ;  as  there  is  but  one  God,  'and  one  Lord." 
[Strom.  Lib.  vii.  p.  891,  890,  899.  Edit.  Oxon. 
1715.]  Is  it  thus  that  Mr.  Breckinridge  distin- 
guishes heresy  ? 

On  penance  and  satisfaction,  what  said  these 
Protestants  of  Mr.  B  1 

Tertullian  addressing  the  sinner,  "Thou  hast 
offended  God,  but  thou  canst  be  reconciled  ;  thou 
'hast  a  God  to  whom  thou  canst  make  satisfaction, 
and  who  desires  it--- .Believe  mo  the  less  thou 
■■jpare  thyself, -the  more  will  God  spare  thee."  St. 
-Cyprian  against  those  who  Mitigated  the  austerity 
of  penance,  "What  do  they  intend  by  such  inter- 
ference I  unless  it  be  that  Jesus  Christ  is  less  ap- 
peased by  pains  and  satisfactions  !"  (E p.  ad  Com. 
55.)  Is  this  the  doctrine  of  modern  Protestants  "! 
■  Did  those  ante.-Nicene  Fathers  know  any  thing 
of  "indulgences1']  We  are  not  to  understand 
Protestant  "indulgences"  however,  for  of  these 
they  knew  nothing.  In  the  Catholic  church  an 
indulgence  is  "the  remission  of  canonical  penance 
or  temporal  penalty  which  often  remains  due  to 
sin  after  the  guilt  and  eternal  punishment  have 
been  remitted  in  the  sacrament  of  penance."  To 
prove  the  exercise  ofsucli  remission,  by  indulgence, 
I  refer  you  to  Tertullian,  (Lib!  dc  pudicit,  c.  21. 
22.  p.  1014)  to  Cyprian,  (Ep.  27.  pi  39  and  Ep. 
29.  p.  41,  42.)  I  refer  to  the  Council  of  Ancyra, 
in  314,  (Cone.  Gen.  L.  i.  Cant.  v.  p.  1458.)  All 
•  these  were  before  the  Council  of  Nice  ! 

Did  these  Fathers,  whom  Mr.  B.  has  converted 
into  Protestants,  know  any  thing  of  Purgatory  1 
Hear  Tertullian,  directing  "  Oblations  for  the  dead 
on  the  anniversary  day."  (de  Coron.  Milit.  p. 
-289.)  Again,  "  Reflect,"  says  he,  to  widowers, 
•"  lor  whose  soiils  you  pray,  for  whom  you  make  an- 
nual oblutiom.,'>  ("Exhort,  ad  Cast.  c.  xi.  p.  942.) 
Js  it  thus  that  our  modern  Protestants  speak  of  the 
.■duty  of  praying  for  the  dead  1 

St.  Cyprian.  "  Our  predecessors  prudently  ad- 
vised, that  no  brother,  departing  this  life,  should 
•nominate  any  churchman  his  executor;  and  should 
he  do  so,  that  no  oblation  should  be  made  fur  him, 
nor  sacrifice  offered  for  his  repose".. ..(Ep.  1.  p. 
2.)     These  are  some  of  Mr.  Breckinridge's  (sup- 


posed) Protestants  before  the  Council  of  Nice! } 
These  '  protestants,'  speak  of  '  oblations,''  then, 
they  believed  in  the  sacrifice  of  mass,  which  ex- 
ists still  in  the  Catholic  church.  They  prayed 
for  the  dead  :  then,  they  believed  in  purgatory. 
Be  assured,  Sir,  that  the  General  Assembly  would 
not  extend  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  those 
primitive  witnesses  of  the  Christian  faith.  They 
were  Catholics,  and  the  man  who  says  they  were 
any  thing  else,  only  proves,  by  the  assertion,  that 
until  he  is  better  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical 
antiquity,  it  were  wiser  not  to  speak  of  them  atall. 
This  was  before  the  Council  of  Nice.  Tertullian 
calls  the  Pope  in  his  days,  the  "supreme  pontiff, 
the  Bishop  of  Bishops."  (de  pudicitia  Cap.  1.) 
"  Remember,  he  adds  elsewhere,  that  Christ 
gave  the  keys  to  St.  Peter  and  through  him  to  the 
church  (Scorp.)  St.  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  Pope 
in  his  day  as  occupying  "  the  chair  of  St.  Peter 
in  the  head  church,  from  which  proceeds  the 
unity  of  the  Priesthood."  (Ep.  55.  ad  Corne- 
lium.)  Flow,  says  he  again,  can  any  one  ima- 
gine himself  to  be  in  the  church,  if  he  forsake  the 
chair  of  peter,  on  which  the  church  is  founded. 
(De  Unit.  Eccl.)  Now,  Rev.  Sir,  since,  as  you 
say,  all  these  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  were  Protes- 
tants, it  is  to  be  hoped  you  will  learn  to  speak  of 
the  See  of  Rome  as  they  did.  Tell  your  congre- 
gations with  St.  Cyprian,  that  if  they  forsake  the 
"  chair  of  Peter,"  they  cannot  belong  to  the  true 
church. 

Eusebius  of  Ccesarea,  describing  the  funeral  of 
Constantine,  says,  "the  ministers  of  God,  surround- 
ed by  the  multitude  of  the  faithful,  advanced  into 
the  middle  space,  and  with  prayeis  performed  the 
ceiemonies  of  the  divine  worship.  The  blessed 
prince,  reposing  in  his  coffin,  was  extolled  with 
many  praises  ;  when  the  people,  in  concert  with 
the  Priests,  not  without  sighs  and  tears,  offered 
prayers  to  heaven  for  his  soul,-  in  this  manifesting 
the  most  acceptable  service  to  a  religious  prince." 
(De  vita  Constant.  L.  iv.  c.  71.  p.  G(J7.)  Is  it 
thus  that  our  modern  Protestants  bury  their  dead  ? 
Do  they  pray  to  heaven  for  the  soul  of  the  deceased? 
.St.  Ephrem  of  Edessa,  addressing  his  brethren 
on  the  approach  of  his  death  requests  them  to  re- 
memember  him  after  his  departure.  "Go  along 
with  me,"  he  says,  "in  psalms  and  in  your  prayers; 
and  please  constantly  to  make  oblations  for  me. 
When  the  thirtieth  day  shall  be  completed,  then  re- 
member me  ;  for  the  dead  are  helped  by  the  offerings 
of  the  living:'1  (In  Testam.  T.  iii.  p.  294.)  Do 
Protestants  say  this  1 

St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  "Then  (he  is  speak- 
ing of  the  liturgical  service  of  the  church)  we 
pray  for  the  holy  fathers  and  bishops  thai  are 
dead,-  and  in  short  for  all  those  that  are  departed 
this  life  in  our  communion;  believing  that  their  souls 
receive  very  great  relief  by  the  prayers  that  are  offer- 
ed for  them,  while  this  holy  and  tremendous  vic- 
tim (i.e.  Christ  in  the  Eucharist)  lies  upon  the  al- 
tar." (Catech.  Mystag.  v.  n.  vi.  vii.  p.  297.)  Do 
Protestants  hold  this  doctrine,  of  prayers  for  the 
departed,  round  an  altar,  with  a  victim  lying  on  it  ? 

St.  Ambrose  (Serin,  in  Psal.  clxviii.  T.  ii.  p. 
1073.)     St.  Ephiphanius  (Hares.   T.  i.  p.  911.) 


*f77 


St.  Jerome  (ad  Jovin  ii.  L.  i.  p.  538.)  In  a  word 
all  the  fathers  testily  that  prayer  for  the  dead  was 
the  practice  of  the  Christian  church,  and  founded 
on  the  doctrine  of  that  middle  state  of  temporary 
suffering  and  purification,  which  is  called  purga- 
tory. St.  Augustine  states  the  doctrine  as  distinct- 
ly as  it  could  he  stated  hy  the  present  Bishop  of 
Rome  or  of  Philadelphia.  "Before  the  most  se- 
vere and  lastjudginent,"  says  he,  "  some  undergo 
temporal 'punishments  in  this  life ;  some  after  death  ; 
and  others  both  now  and  then.  But  not  all  that 
suffer  after  death,  are  condemned  to  eternal 
flames.  What  is  not  expiated  in  this  life,  to  some 
is  remitted  in  the  life  to  come,  so  that  they  may 
escape  eternal  punishment."  (De  Civ.  Dei.  L.  21. 
c.  13.  vol.  5.  p.  1432.) 

St.  John  Chrysostom.  "  //  was  ordained  by  the 
Apostles,  that,  in  celebrating  the  sacred  mysteries, 
(viz.  the  sacrifice  of  mass)  the  dead  should  be 
remembered  ;  for  they  well  knew,  what  advan- 
tage would  be  thence  derived  to  them.  Will  not 
God  be  propitious,  when  he  looks  down  on  the 
whole  assembly  of  the  people  raising  their  hands 
up  to  him  ;  when  he  beholds  the  venerable  choir 
of  the  priests,  and  the  sacred  victim  lying  on  the 
altar:''  (Homil  3.  in  Ep.  ad  Philip.  T.  xi.  p.  32.) 
Were  these  Protestants'?  Then  why  do  not  Pro- 
testants believe  as  they  did] 

With  respect  to  extreme  unction,  St.  James 
says:  "Is  anyone  sick  among  you1?  Let  him 
bring  in  the  Priests  of  the  church,  and  let  them 
pray  over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord:  and  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the 
sick  man  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up,  and  if 
he  be  in  sins,  they  shall  be  forgiven  Aim."  (v.  1-1,  15.) 
This  Scripture  has  lost  its  meaning  among  Protes- 
tants. It  so  offended  Luther  that  he  expelled  the 
whole  Epistle  from  the  canon  of  Scripture,  calling 
it  "an  Epistle  of  Straw,"  and  unworthy  of  an 
Apostle. 

The  testimonies  of  the  Fathers  referring  to  this 
text  for  the  proof and  practice  ot  "  Extreme  Unc- 
tion" are  equally  clear  and  numerous.  The  text 
itself  however  is  so  plain,  that  those  who  disbe- 
lieve or  pervert  its  testimony,  would  not  be  con- 
vinced even  if"  one  were  to  rise  from  the  dead." 
The  apostles  were  not  priests,  neither  was  it  "ex- 
treme unction"  they  administered  in  the  case  re- 
ferred to,  Mark.  vi.  13. 

Let  us  now  see  what  was  their  doctrine  on  the 
Supremacy  of  the  Pope.  The  faith  of  the  Ca- 
tholic Church  is,  that  Jesus  Christ  invested  St. 
Peter  with  prerogatives  of  superiority  above  the 
other  Apostles.  To  the  twelve  he  imparted  gener- 
al powers,  but  to  Peter  special  and  personal  pre- 
rogative. The  language  which  he  addressed  to 
Peter  was  not  addressed  to  the  other  Apostles, 
either  collectively  or  individually. 

The  college  of  the  Apostles  were  addressed  by 
their  divine  Master  in  their  collective  capacity,  but 
Peter,  in  the  singular  number,  and  in  language 
which  included  none  besides.  For  proof  of  this 
see,  Matth.  xvi.  15,  16,  17  ,18.  19.  Luke  xxii. 
31,  32.  John  xxi.  15,  16,  17.  Did  the  Fathers 
on  these  passages  believe  as  Mr.  Breckinridge 
would  persuade  us  they  did  ? 


But  I  would'  first  ask,  if  Christ  had  not  meant' 
to  impart  superiority  to  Peter  in  the  external  ad- 
ministration of  his  spiritual  kingdom,  the  church:, 
why  address  him  singularly  above  all  the  rest?' 
The  general  commission  given  to  all  would  have 
been  sufficient. 

Tertullian,  IVeamus,  and  Origen,  the  best  Wit- 
nesses of  the  faith,  during  that  period  of  the 
church,  in  which  we  have  your  assertion  for  be- 
lieving that  "all  Christians  were  Protestants,"  I 
mean  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  attest  the  supe- 
riority of  Peter.  Origen,  commenting  on  the 
words  "  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  says  :  "  This  was  done  before 
the  words  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind,  &c.  were,  in 
the  18th  chapter,  uttered.  And,  truly,  if  the  words 
of  the  Gospel  be  attentively  considered,  we  shall  there 
find  that  the  last  words  were  common  to  Peter, 
and  the  others  ;  but  that  the  former  spoken  to 
Peter,  imported  distinction  -and  superiority."  (Com- 
ment in  Matth.  Tom.  x-iii.  p.  613.) 

I  might  quote  innumerable  other  passages  to- 
show  that  this  superiority  was  recognized  in  St. 
Peter  and  his  successors  in  the  See  of  Rome,  from' 
the  Apostolic  days  until  this  hour,  and  that  the 
denial  of  its  existence  was;  as  we  have  just  seen,, 
incompatable  with  the  communion  of  the  church. 
It  is  true,  that  St.  Paul  withstood  Peter,  but  this 
proves  nothing  except  the  zeal  of  the  one  and  the 
meekness  of  the  other;  the  matter  besides  had  no 
reference  to  faith,  and  did  not  involve  any  ques- 
tion of  superiority.  It  is  true,  that  St.  Cyprian,, 
withstood  Pope  Stephen,  on  the  subject  of  baptism 
administered  by  heretics;  but  here  again  the 
question  was  not  about  the  Pope's  superiority, 
which  Cyprian  distinctly  recognized,  since  he  ad- 
vised this  same  Pope  to  exercise  his  supreme  au- 
thority in  correcting  certain  abuses  which  exisled 
among  the  Bishops  in  Gaul.  It  is  true,  that  in 
every  age  the  Popes  have  received  counsel,  and 
sometimes  severe  reprehension  from  those  who  ac- 
knowledged their  spiritual  supremacy.  The  let- 
ters of  St.  Bernard  to  Pope  Eugene,  are  as  re- 
markable for  their  freedom  and  almost  severity,  as 
they  are  for  the  evidence  that  theirauthor  consider- 
ed himself  as  addressing  the  vicarof  Jesus  Christ, 
and  visible  head  of  the  church  upon  earth. 

But  Mr.  Breckinridge  says  that  even  one  of  the 
Popes,  Gregory  the  Great,  denounced  John, 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  for  assuming  the 
title  of  Universal  Bishop.  Answer.  He  did,  be- 
cause it  belonged  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  .to  Gre- 
gory himself,  who  in  the  very  same  place  claimed 
and  exercised  the  rights  of  Universal  Bishop. 
In  that  very  letter  he  asserts  that  the  Bishop  of  « 
Constantinople  is  subject  to  the  See  of  Nome,  and 
adds  "  when  Bishops  commit  a  fault,  I  know  not 
what  Bishop  is  not  subject  to  it." 

What  did  those  Fathers  believe  respecting  ce- 
remonies 1  Jesus  Christ  used  them,  when  he  mix- 
ed clay  and  spittle  and  spread  it  on  the  eyes  of 
the  blind  man.  Also  when  he  touched  the  ears  of 
the  deaf  man  with  spittle.  Both  instances  might 
furnish  theme  for  Protestant  ridicule,  as  well  as 
any  ceremonies  used  in  the  church.  But  let  us 
sccVhether  Mr.  Breckinridge's  "  Protestants, be- 


278 


fore  the  Council  of  Nice,"  were  averse  to  ceremo- 
nies, as  their  would-be  descendants.  Tertullian 
says,  speaking  of  the  Christians  of  the  2d  century 
"  whenever  we  move  ;  when  wc  enter  and  go  out ; 
in  dressing  and  washing;  at  table,  when  we  retire 
to  rest,  during  conversation,  we  impress  on  our  fore- 
head the  si  gn  of  the  cross."  (De  Corona  Milit.  c. 
iii.  iv.  p.  289.)  Would  it  not  sound  odd  to  hear 
Mr.  Breckinridge  at  the  commencement  of  his 
next  sermon  saying  to  the  people,  "  My  Brethren, 
let  us  begin  like  our  Protestant  Fathers  before  the 
Council  of  Nice,  by  making  the  sign  of  the  cross 
upon  our  foreheads,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."  He  might  go  on  to  en- 
courage them  by  the  following  quotation  from  St. 
Augustine.  "It  is  not  without  cause  that  Christ 
would  have  his  sign  impressed  on  our  foreheads,  as 
the  seat  of  shame,  that  the  Christian  should  not 
blush  at  the  indignities  offered  to  his  Master." 
(Enar  in  Ps.  xxx.  7.  viii.  p.  73.)  What  would 
the  congregation  say  to  this  specimen  of  Ante- 
Nicene  Protestantism  1 

Here  then,  we  have  the  testimony  of  these 
(supposed;  Protestants  before  the  Council  of  Nice 
as  well  as  after,  by  which  it  appears  that  they  be- 
lieved as  Catholics  on  the  Eucharist,  Penance, 
Indulgences,  Purgatory,  Prayers,  andlhe Euchuristic 
sacrifice  of  Mass  for  the  dead,  the  supremacy  of  Peter 
and  his  successors  in  the  See  of  Rome,  Ceremonies 
even  down  to  the  sign  of  the  cross,  which  the  Pa- 
gans ridiculed  in  their  days,  as  the  Protestants  do 
in  ours. 

,  All  this  proves  that  the  second  of  my  "stale 
questions,"  in  which  "  1  called  upon  you  to  say 
what  society  of  Christians  ever  taught  this  pre- 
tended "  religion  of  Christ,  previous  to  the 
Reformation'?"  is  still  to  be  answered.  You  once 
referred  to  "  the  Waldenses  and  the  Greek 
church."  But  I  exposed  the  ignorance  betrayed 
by  this  answer,  so  effectually,  that  you  did  not 
venture  to  repeat  it.  After  some  three  months, 
you  have  again  returned  to  the  "  stale  questions," 
and  just  told  us  that  "  every  society  of  Christians 
on  earth,  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  to  the 
Council  of  Nice,  held  the  doctrines  of  the  Protes- 
tant Religion!!!"  When  you  were  determined 
to  make  an  assertion  so  extraordinary,  you  should 
have  adduced  something  like  proof.  Even  "Ush- 
er's authority,"  would  have  been  better  than  none. 
But  in  addition  to  the  evidence  just  produced,  let 
me  ask  did  "  eve^  society  of  Christians  on 
earth,"  pass  into  Popery  at  the  time  of  the  Council 
of  Nice,  and  yet  so  effectually  conceal  the  chancre, 
that  neither  themselves,  nor  the  rest  of  mankind 
knew  any  thing  about  it  ?  What  ancient  history 
mentions  it]  Where  did  if  begin  ?  Who  was  its 
author?  How  did  it  spread  ?  What  fine  Protestants 
they  must  have  been,  to  give  up  the  pure  doctrines 
of  Calvinism,  without  a  struggle;  and  become 
Roman  Catholics,  without  being  conscious  of  the 
change  !  !  They  must  have  gone  to  bed  Protes- 
tants, and  got  up  Papists,  having  forgotten  that 
they  had  ever  been  any  thing  else! !  But  this  is  not 
all.  How  is  it  that  in  the  days  of  their  "  pure 
Protestantism,"  they  furnished  such  anti-protes- 
tant  testimonies  of  their  belief  in  all  the  doctrines 


on  which  the  children  of  the  Reformation  disagree 
with  Catholics — even  to  making  the  sign  of  the 
cross  ?  an  act  which  their  would-be  descendants 
sometimes  denounce  as  the  "  mark  of  the  beast." 
The  Fathers  ivere  Catholics ,-  believing  in  the  doc- 
trines, and  glorying  in  the  Unity,  Holiness,  Catho- 
licity, and  Jpostolici/y  of  the  Catholic  church. 
Their  language  glows  with  eloquence,  when  they 
riointed  to  these  her  attributes,  which  are  exclu- 
sively peculiar  to  the  church  of  Christ.  The  wea- 
pons with  which  they  confounded  heresy  in  their 
day,  have  been  transmitted  from  century  to  centu- 
ry, in  the  unbroken  succession  of  the  ministry, 
and  constantly  been  employed  for  the  same  pur- 
pose. 

But  he  must  be  very  indifferent  about  his  repu- 
tation as  an  ecclesiastical  scholar,  who  ventures 
to  assert  that  the  Fathers  were  Protestants,  either 
"before  the  Council  of  Nice,"  or  after.  Such 
bold  strokes  of  the  pen  evince  too  great  a  dispropor- 
tion between  a  man's  knowledge  and  his  zeal. 
They  may  do,  however,  when  entrusted  exclusively 
to  the  partial  inspection  of  Protestant  criticism. 
In  writing  theological  epistles  to  Presbyterian 
ladies,  for  example,  you  may  make  latin  quota- 
tions, and  take  an  extract  from  a  Protestant  Arch- 
bishop, as  in  the  case  of  Usher,  to  show  that 
Catholics  are  idolaters,  by  the  admissions  of  their 
own  writers  !  But  when  you  condescend  to  invite 
"  priests  and  bishops"  into  the  field  of  discussion, 
the  case  is  materially  altered;  and  where  you  as- 
sert, for  instance,  that  the  Fathers  were  Protes- 
tants, you  merely  give  your  opponent  an  occasion 
to  prove  the  contrary.  This  I  have  done,  in  the 
present  case,  to  the  satisfaction,  I  trust,  of  every 
sincere  reader.  So  that  it  will  be  necessary  to 
search  again  for  that  unheard-of  society  of  Chris- 
tians, that  professed  the  doctrines  of  Protestant- 
ism, previous  to  the  Reformation.  And  because 
no  such  society  ever  existed,  the  "stale  questions" 
will  remain  unanswered,  and  unanswerable  to  eter- 
nity. The  consequence  is,  that  if  the  Religion  of 
Christ  was  professed  in  the  world  before  the  six- 
teenth century,  it  is  not,  and  it  cannot  be,  that 
which  Protestantism  in  the  mass,  or  any  sect  in 
particular,  has  professed  since  the  Reformation. 

The  3d  question  wss  that  in  which  "I  called 
upon  you  to  say  whether  Christ  revealed  all  the 
doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Religion,  beginning 
with  Episcopalians  and  ending  with  Unitarians'?" 

To  this  Mr.  B.  opposes  a  remark  of  my  own  in 
which  I  admitted  the  existence  of  "orthodox  doc- 
trines among  Protestants."  But  my  remark  was 
intended  to  show  that  for  all  the  orthodox  doctrines 
that  exist  among  Protestants,  they  are  indebted  to 
the  tradition  or  constant  teaching  of  the  Catholic 
church,  and  not  to  private  interpretation  of  the 
Scripture;  since  Unitarian  Protestants,  on  the  con- 
trary, reject  some  of  those  doctrines,  contending, 
with  arguments,  which  Presbyterians  at  least,  can 
never  answer — that  they  are  ?iot  co7itained  in  the 
sacred,  volume. 

This  observation  he  converts,  with  much  more 
ingenuity  than  ingenuousness,  into  an  admission 
on  my  part,  "  that  there  are  orthodox  Protestants." 
I  never  said  so.     I  merely  said  that  there  are  some 


279 


orthodox  "doctrines"  among  Protestants.  Pres- 
byterians believe  in  the  Trinity,  Unitarians,  in  the 
existence  of  God — both  doctrines  are  orthodox. 
Yet  both  denominations  are  heterodox,  the  latter 
for  denying  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  former  for 
teaching  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  all,  and  that 
God  created  some  men  under  the  unavoidable 
necessity  of  being  damned. 

By  transfering  the  word  "  orthodox, "J  to  Pro- 
testants, instead  of  "  doctrines,"  Mr.  B.  attempts 
to  shake  off  all  those  Protestant  denominations 
which  he  condemns  as  heterodox,  and  rallies  a 
few  sects  under  his  own  perversion  of  my  words. 
He  goes  so  far  as  to  include  "Episcopalians, 
Lutherans,  Baptists,  Congregationalists,  Metho- 
dists, Moravians,  and  Presbyterians,"  in  "the  re- 
ligion of  Christ,"  but  here  his  charity  seem3  to 
fail.  Why  he  should  exclude  the  Quakers,  Swe- 
denborgians,  Universalists  and  Unitarians,  I  am, 
as  no  doubt  they  will  be,  utterly  at  a  loss  to  con- 
ceive. Do  not  all  these,  profess  to  follow  the  true 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  as  well  as  Mr. 
Breckinridge?  Are  they  not  threading  the  laby- 
rinth of  vScripture  by  the  same  "rule  of  faith"  as 
himself?  Be  this^s  it  may,  he  has  not  enume- 
rated them  among  the  sects  that  compose  the 
Protestant  religion,  alias  the  religion  of  Christ. 

But,  Rev.  Sir,  considering  the  doctrinal  con- 
tradictions, by  which  even  the  sects  you  men- 
tion are  divided  from  one  another,  will  any  reason- 
able man  say  that  Christ  could  have  revealed  all 
their  doctrines.  If  Baptists  are  right,  as  you 
admit,  must  not  Presbyterians  be  wrong?  Can 
the  same  Jesus  Christ  be  the  author  of  both  doc- 
trines ?  Does  the  same  Bible  teach  both  ?  Do 
any  two  of  these  denominations  teach  alike  on  all 
points  ?  Do  any  two  congregations  hold  identi- 
cally the  same  doctrines  ?  Does  not  the  whole 
amount  to  this — that  every  Protestant  believes  ex- 
actly what  he  pleases  ? 

When  you  talk  of  "various  sects"  in  the  Catho- 
lic church,  you  evidently  forget  that  a  few  lines 
before,  you  had  acknowledged  the  confran/,  and  as- 
cribed our  "  uniformity"  of  belief  to  "  compul- 
sion." Now  even  this  will  not  account  for  our 
uniformity  in  countries  where  compulsion  cannot 
reach  us.  In  England,  vScotland,  Ireland,  and 
North  and  South  America  we  are  uniform  in  faith, 
and  are  increasing  by  conversions  from  Protes- 
tantism, so  much  so,  that  all  the  bigots  of  the  land 
affect  to  be  frightened,  at  the  rapid  growth  of  poper}^. 
Do  they  not  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press  endea- 
vour to  perpetuate  prejudice  and  excite  hatred  against 
Catholics  and  their  religion?  Are  we  not.  denounced 
by  even  your  Reverend  self,  as  idolaters?  And 
still  we  are  uniform  and  increasing!  Is  this  by 
compulsion?  The  unity  of  Catholic  faith,  in 
all  ages,  and  throughout  the  world,  is  one  of  the 
maiks  of  its  Divine  origin.  Protestants,  on  the 
contrary,  have  never  ceased  to  divide  and  sub- 
divide since  their  separation  from  the  church. 

They  set  out  with  the  principle  that  Scripture  is 
plain.  Then,  it  would  be  expected  that  all  should 
understand  it  alike.  But  no:  -Luther  and  Car- 
lostadius,  and  Zuinglius,  and  Socinus,  and  Cal- 
vin quarrelled,  on  tbe  very  threshhold  of  the  Re- 


formation, about  the  mca.  Ing  of  Scripture.  The 
battle,  after  three  hundred  years,  is  still  going  on 
among  their  descendants,  less  fiercely  indeed, 
because  the  parties  are  now  scattered  over  a 
larger  surface  of  ground,  and  of  doctrine.  The 
Reformers  felt  and  foresaw  all  this ;  and  whilst 
they  preached  the  right  of  private,  they  substituted 
public,  interpretation  of  Scripture  in  the  form  of 
"  Creeds  and  Confessions  of  Faith."  Yesterday 
they  set  at  defiance  the  authority  of  the  whole 
Christian  world,  and  to-day  they  prescribe  on  a 
piece  of  parchment,  what  their  own  followers  are 
to  believe  !  Mr.  Breckinridge  alludes  with  ap- 
parent complacency  to  those  Creeds  of  Protestant- 
ism, and  singularly  enough,  lays  considerable 
emphasis  on  their  number.  He  says  they  were 
twelve.  But  would  not  one  be  better  than  twelve. 
And  why  make  so  many  ? 

There  was,  1st.  The  Helvetian  Confession, 
drawn  up  in  Basle  in  1536.  Amended  and  en- 
larged in  1566.  Then  there  was,  2d.  The.  Cal- 
vinistic  Confession,  drawn  up  by  Beza,  and  pre- 
sented to  Charles  IX.  in  1561.  Then  there  was, 
3d.  The  English  Calvinistic  Confession,  drawn 
up  in  1'5G2,  and  published  under  Elizabeth,  in 
1571.  Then,  4th.  The  Creed  of  Scotland,  by 
Parliament,  in  1568.  Then,  5th.  The  Belgic 
Confession,  1561,  approved  in  the  Synod  of  1579, 
and  confirmed  in  that  of  Dort,  1619.  Then,  6th. 
The  Calvinistic  Confession,  in  Poland,  composed 
in  the  Synod  of  Czenger,  in  1570.  Then,  7th, 
That  ol'  the  four  imperial  cities  presented  to 
Charles  V.  in  1530,  In  the  same  year,  was  8th, 
The  Augsburg  Confession,  drawn  up  by  Melanc- 
thon.  Then,  9th,  the  Saxon  Confession  at  Wit- 
temburg.  in  1551.  Then,  10th.  Another  in  the 
sacred  city,  presented  afterwrds  at  the  Council 
of  Trent.  Then,  11th.  The  Confession  of  Fre- 
deric, published  ten  years  after  his  death,  in 
1577.  There  were  several  others,  all  publish- 
ed within  the  short  period  of  forty  years.  And 
all  these  for  what,  it  the  Scripture  was  plain, 
and  every  man  had  a  right  to  judge  of,  for  him- 
self? Now  it  is  evident  that  these  confessions 
varied  in  doctrine,  one  from  another;  otherwise, 
one  would  have  been  a  model  for  the  rest.  All 
these  confessions  were  by  the  Lutherans  and  Cal- 
vinisfs  alone.  But  we  have,  since  then,  had  the 
Westminster  Confession,  which  was  to  have 
been  the  Inst ;  and  the  reader  will  recollect,  that 
when  I  quoted  it  some  time  ago,  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge advised  me  of  my  mistuke,  and  informed 
me,  that  certain  "offensive  passages,"  had  been 
expunged  out  of  it  "some  fifty  years  ago,"  The 
present  standard  of  Presbyterian  Orthodox)',  pro- 
fesses in  its  title  page,  to  have  been  "  anund-d"' 
in  the  year  1821.  How  soon  it  will  require  to  be 
amended  again,  no  one  can  tell.  But  judging  by 
the  decay  of  old  doctrines,  and  the  growth  of  new 
ones,  the  period  cannot  be  distant.  It  has  run  a 
long  time  now,  nearly  twelve  years! 

Such  are  the  harmony  and  unchangeableness  of 
Protestant  doctrines !  Can  these  cotemporane- 
ous  and  consecutive  contradictions  of  doctrine,  con- 
stitute "  the  Religion  of  Christ"  even  though 
they  had  existed  previous  to  the  Reformation  ? 


28© 


Mr.  Breckinridge  also  tells  how  rapidly  Pro- 
testantism, "this  (supposed)  Religion  of  Christ," 
spread  in  Europe,  Asia,  (!!!)  Africa,  (!!!)  and 
America.  As  history  has  not  made  us  acquainted 
with  its  triumphs  in  either  Africa  or  Asia,  we 
must  he  content  to  notice  those  which  it  boasts 
of  in  Europe.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  founded  on 
the  general  authority  of  the  Protestant  Dr.  Hey- 
lin's  History  of  the  Reformation,  that  Protestant- 
ism was  introduced  info  every  country  in  Europe, 
either  by  the  rebellion  of  the  subjects,  or  the  ti/raitui/ 
of  the  governments.  Take  Heylin's  History,  and 
the  map  of  Europe,  and  see  whether  a  single  ex- 
ception can  be  found.  Its  footsteps  in  every  di- 
rection were  marked  with  bloodshed  and  desola- 
tion, when  it  wanted  power,  and  with  oppression 
after  power  had  been  obtained.  But  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge will  say  that  this  was  owing  to  the  per- 
secution it  suffered.  I  deny  the  assertion;  but 
even  if  it  were  true,  he  should  remember  that 
"  the  Religion  of  Christ"  waited  patiently 
through  a  martydom  of  persecution  for  three  hun- 
dred years,  and  never  unsheathed  the  sword,  nor 
raised  the  arm  of  rebellion  against  its  Pagan  per- 
secutors. 

Protestantism  in  its  establishment,  did  not 
trust  much  to  its  own  evidences.  It  did  not 
wait  to  gain  its  ascendency  over  the  minds  of 
men  by  the  influence  of  gentle  persuasion.  It 
owes  its  propagation  more  to  the  corrupt  passions 
of  men,  than  to  any  other  cause.  It  flattered 
princes,  and  magistrates  ;  by  making  them  heads, 
and  as  your  standard  has  it,  "nursing  Fathers^  of 
the  Church.  It  flattered  the  lusts  of  faithless 
ecclesiastics,  by  teaching  them  that  celibacy  was 
contrary  to  the  law  of  God.  It  flattered  the 
pride  of  the  multitude  by  telling  them  that  each 
one  of  them,  could  understand  the  Scriptures  bet- 
ter than  all  the  Fathers,  Councils,  and  Pastors  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  It  formed  intrigues  with  civil 
power;  worked  by  revolution  and  violence;  re- 
warded its  votaries  with  the  spoils  of  sacrilege, 
torn  from  the  Catholic  Clergy,  Convents,  Monaste- 
ries, and  Churches.  Read  the  Protestant  Doctor 
Heylin,  and  you  will  see  the  proof  of  what  is 
here  stated. 

Is  it  not  then,  somewhat  surprising  that  you 
should  have  referred  to  the  spread  of  Protestant- 
ism in  Europe,  as  a  proof  that  it  is  "the  Reli- 
gion of  Christ ;"  whereas  the  very  reference  fur- 
nishes evidence  of  the  contrary  !  Has  it  not 
been  propagated  by  violence,  and  maintained  by 
acts  of  Parliament  ? 

If  then,  as  Mr.  Breckinridge  asserts,  "Me  Reli- 
gion of  Christ"  is  composed  of  "Episcopalians, 
Lutherans,  Baptists,  Congregationalists,  Metho- 
dists, Moravians,  and  Presbyterians,"  I  ask 
him  whether  Christ  revealed  all  the  doctrines,  on 
which  these  denominations  are  divided  1  Until 
he  has  answered  this,  my  third  "  stale  question" 
remains ;  and  what  he  has  said  is  only  the  eva- 
sion of  the  difficulty.  As  to  the  fourth  and  fifth 
questions  about  the  nullity  of  Protestant  ordina- 
tion, they  seem  to  have  taken  him  by  surprise,  al- 
though they  are  as  "  stale"  as  the  others.  "  Want 
of  room,  compels  him  to  delay  an  answer  until  the 


next  letter,  in  which,  Providence  permitting,  he 
will  give  one  at  large."  But  is  it  not  curious, 
that  room  should  be  wanting?  And  that  after 
nearly  three  months  of  evasion,  the  answer  to  a 
preliminary  question  should  still  be  crowded  out 
for  "want  of  room  ?" 

Yours,  &c. 

John  Hughes. 

P.  S.  Translation  of  the  eighth  paragraph  in 
which  Mr.  B.  makes  the  author  say  that  the 
church  "was  governed  by  strumpets  and  for- 
gotten by  God." 

"  Who,  considering  these  things  would  not  be 
scandalized,  and  think  in  amazement,  that  God 
had  forgotten  his  church,  which  he  permitted  to 
be  disgraced  at  thewill,  (or  caprice)  of  strumpets  * 
So  indeed  the  holy  Fathers  sometimes  complain- 
ed, the  suggestion,  whether  God  had  forsaken  his 
church,  sometimes  striking  their  minds,  whilst 
they  saw  the  church  almost  overwhelmed  by  tow- 
ering waves  from  every  side.  For  hear  the  great 
Basil  thus  oppressed  with  the  sense  of  these  evils, 
writing  as  followslo  the  Alexandrians  :  "  But  this 
thought  has  come  to  these  speculations  of  my 
mind  ;  whether  the  Lord  has  entirely  forsaken 
his  churches,  &c.  whilst  for  example  (which  our 
own  Bede  also  says)  the  church  is  sometimes  not 
only  afflicted  but  also  disgraced  by  such  oppres- 
sions from  the  Gentiles,  that  (if  it  were  possible) 
her  Redeemer  would  appear  to  have  deserted  her 
for  a  season,  &c."  The  lamentation  of  the  church 
is  the  voice  of  the  mourning  dove  :  "  I  am  for- 
saken and  alone."  Put  not  so,  because  it  is  in 
these  evils  particularly  that  we  recognise  the 
more  earnest  vigilance  of  Divine  Providence  to- 
wards his  church,  and  the  closer  indwelling  of 
his  protection,  solicitude  and  care.  For  although 
such  great  evils  prevailed  through  this  whole 
century,  and  scandals  multiplied,  still  there  was 
no  one  found  to  separate  on  this  account  from 
the  church  of  Rome,  by  schism,  or  rise  against 
her  by  heresy;  but  all,  in  every  part  of  the  world, 
united  by  the  bond  of  faith,  continued  in  the 
covenant  of  obedience.  So  that  the  saying  of 
Nahum  is  applicable  ;  '  why  do  you  think  against 
the  Lord  1  He  will  effect  a  consummation,  a  two- 
fold tribulation  shall  not  arise.'  For  whilst  the 
church  was  labouring  under  these  evils,  she  was 
not  suffered  to  be  divided  by  schisms,  nor  torn  by 
the  deceptions  of  heresies,  but  God  preserved  all 
the  faithful  in  obedience  to  her.  Which  certainly 
would  not  have  been  the  case  if  God  had  not  pro- 
vided with  supreme  vigilance,  for  her  safety  and 
integrity;  in  such  a  manner  that  the  farther  he 
seemed  exteriorly  to  have  withdrawn  from  her, 
so  much  the  more  do  we  recognize  his  interior 
presence,  supporting  her  with  his  hand,  lest,  agi- 
tated by  the  shocks  of  wicked  men,  she  should 
be  overthrown.  WTho  will  deny  but  this  is  to 
be  considered  as  miraculous  1  For,  if  something 
be  thrown  in  the  fire  and  is  not  consumed  by 
it,  we  acknowledge  greater  power  of  God,  than 
if  the  same  thing  is  preserved,  being  remote 
from  fire.  And  as  St.  Paul  says,  '  the  fire  shall 
try  every  man's  work  of  what  kind  it  is ;'  cer- 


SSI 


tainly  the  evidence  of  the  fact  proves  it  to  have 
been  the  work  of  God,  when  the  Roman  church, 
to  which  so  man}''  firebrands  were  applied,  could 
not  be  consumed  to  destruction,  and  reduced 
to  nothing-.  The  declaration  and  promise  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  the  See  of  Peter,  'that  the 
gates  of  Hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it,  has 
clearly  stood,  and  will  stand  forever  immoveable.'  " 

Is  this,  Rev.  Sir,  saying  that  the  church  "was 
forgotten  by  God  ?" 

In  the  former  letter,  your  quotation  ran  thus  : 
««  That  Theodora,  a  courtezan  of  noble  family  ob- 
tained supreme  controul  in  Rome  ;  that  she  ex- 
pelled the  lawful  Popes  and  put  violent  and  nefa- 
rious men  into  the  Papal  chair,  that  the  Pope  Ser- 
gius  III.  committed  adultery  with  her  daughter, 
and  their  son  John,  the  offspring  of  their  crimes, 
was  afterwards  Pope  himself;  he  says  they  were 
apostate  Popes  and  not  Apostolical  ;  calls  the 
times  deplorable  ;  and  the  scandal  overwhelming; 
says  the  church  was  governed  by  strumpets  and 
forgotten  by  God." 

This  quotation,  it  will  be  remembered,  you 
made  under  the  threat  of  exposure,  and  from  its  un- 
fairness the  reader  may  infer  what  must  be  your 
quotations  when  you  are  under  no  such  advisement 
of  impending  exposure.  The  reader  would  sup- 
pose that  this  quotation  was  taken  out  of  one  place 
in  the  original,  that  the  context  was  unbroken^ 
But  no.  Mr.  Breckinridge  made  it  up  of  scraps 
taken  out  of  four  different  paragraphs  of  a  folio 
page,  divided.  The  first  scrap  is  from  the  5th 
paragraph,  the  2d  scrap  from  the  6th,  the  3d  scrap 
from  the  5th  again,  the  4th  scrap  from  the  4th 
paragraph,  the  5th  scrap  from  the  5th  again,  and 
the  tith  scrap  from  the  7th  paragraph.  All  these 
he  transposes  as  suits  his  purpose  ;  tacks  them 
together,  and  produces,  without  indicating  a  single 
breach  of  context,  the  quotation,  as  it  stands  above  ! 
Has  not  Protestantism  found  in  him,  an  able  de- 
fender ?  One  it  may  be  proud  of?  But  this  is  not 
all. 

The  words  of  the  author  to  which  he  refers  for 
the  penultimate  "scrap,"  are  "  meretricum  arbi- 
trio  infamaii,"  by  which  Baronius,  says  that  God 
permitted  the  Church  "infamari,"  to  be  disgraced, 


"  arbitrio,"  at  the  caprice  "  meretricum,"  of  strum- 
pets. But  Mr.  Breckinridge  takes  a  short  cut; 
and  makes  Baronius  say  that  the  Church  was 
"governed  by  strumpets."  Nor  is  this  all  yet. 
He  makes  Baronius  say  that  the  Church  "was 
forgotten  by  God  ;  whereas  Baronius  not  only 
does  not  say  this,  but  says  directly  the  contrary  ! 
And  Mr.  Breckinridge  has  the  blushing  modesty, 
to  refer  to  the  first  words  of  the  7th  paragraph, 
and  call  it  the  "proof"  (See  Mr.  B's.  last  post- 
script,) of  an  untruth  ,•  and  which  he  must  have 
known  to  he  an  untruth,  if  not  when  he  first  uttered 
it,  at  least,  when  he  attempted  the  deception  of  prov- 
ing it ;  since,  with  the  same  pen  he  rates  Baronius 
as  a  '  Jesuit, '  because  he  (Baronius)  goes  to  prove, 
on  the  contrary,  that  the  Church  was  not  forsaken  by 
God!  This  proves  that  Mr.  Breckinridge  must 
have  known  at  the  time  what  Baronius  said:  and 
knowing  this,  how  could  he  have  the  blushing 
modesty,  as  I  said  before,  to  write  the  word 
"  proof,"  when  he  himself  furnishes  the  evidence 
that  he  knew  the  assertion  to  be  proved,  was  un- 
true? Does  not  all  this  look  strange?  Does 
Protestantism  require  such  defence?  If  it  does, 
you  may  say  of  it,  on  reviewing  the  labours  of 
^our  pen,  what  Hector  said  of  Troy, 

Si  P»r<rnmn  dextra 

Delendi  posseut.  eiiam  hoc  clefcnsa  fuissent. 

J.  H. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

As  the  note  from  Mr.  A.  S.  Langley,  appended 
to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Breckinridge's  last  letter,  is  cal- 
culated to  carry  abroad  a  conviction  of  falsehood 
against  rr>£,  I  feel  it  a  duty  which  I  owe  to  my- 
self to  assert  that  the  impression  made  upon  my 
mind,  on  his  declining  to  receive  any  more  of  the 
Review,  was,  that  he  had  been  forbidden  to  keep 
it  for  sale.  Now,  if  Mr.  L.  had  allowed  me 
the  benefit  of  misconception  of  what  he  did  actu- 
ally say,  in  reference  to  the  sale  of  the  Review,  I 
should  have  remained  satisfied  with  the  guilt  of 
having  indiscreetly  mentioned  the  circumstance 
through  an  error  of  my  own  understanding. 

M.  FITHIAN. 

Sept.  13th,  1833. 


CONTROVERSY,. ...N°.   34. 


Is  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  September  20th,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — I  consider  it  worth  all  the  labour  and 
trial  to  my  feelings  connected  with  this  contro- 
versy, to  have  brought  to  the  view  of  the  Ameri- 
can people  the  true  system  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  in  her  treatment  of  the  Bible.  What  1 
peculiarly  value  in  these  disclosures  is,  that  they 
have  been  made  by  her  professed  advocate  in  the 
progress  of  this  discussion.  First,  you  asserted 
that  the  Bible  was  not  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith  ; 
though  God  revealed  it  for  that  very  end :  next 
you  contended  that  it  had  no  fixed  meaning  with- 
out an  authoritative  interpretation  :  then  you  con- 
ceded that  if  left  to  itself  it  did  not  teach  the 
doctrines  of  the  Papacy  ;  and  finally,  you  almost 
abandon  its  use,  and  retreat  to  the  forlorn  hope 
of  '  the  Fathers.'  If  you  had  written  in  Italy 
or  Spain,  you  might  with  more  frankness  have 
spoken  your  whole  mind.  You  would  have 
owned  that  for  these  and  other  reasons  (as  I  have 
proved  already)  it  stands  at  the  head  of  '  Libros 
Prohibitos ;'  prohibited  books  at  Rome.  With 
Pighius  you  might  have  called  it  (See  Hierarc. 
Lib.  3.  c.  3.)  '  a  nose  of  wax  which  easily  suf- 
fers itself  to  be  drawn  backward  and  forward  ; 
and  moulded  this  way  and  that  way,  and  however 
you  like;'  or  with  Turrian,  'a  shoe  that  will 
fit  any  foot,  a  sphynx's  riddle,  or  matter  for 
strife ;'  (calceus  utrique  pedi  aptus,  sphyngis 
aenigma,  materia  litis  ;)  or  with  Lessius,  'imper- 
fect, doubtful,  obscure,  ambiguous,  and  perplex- 
ed:' or  with  the  author  '  De  Tribus  veritati- 
bus;'  'a  forest  for  theives,  a  shop  of  Heretics;' 
lucus  Prcedonum,  officina  Hsereticorum.  These 
are  honest  Romans  ,■  but  such  candour  would  not 
have  suited  the  latitude  of  an  enlightened,  and 
Bible-reading  people. 

Finding  that  you  renounced  the  defence  of  the 
Apocrypha,  and  the  use  of  the  Bible,  I  followed 
you  to  'the  Fathers,'  'whose  unanimous  con- 
sent' you  delared  to  be  in  your  favour,  and 
which  is  made  in  your  creed,  a  part  of  the  rule  of 
faith,  'according  to  which  the  sacred  Scriptures 
are  to  be  received  and  interpreted.'  Now  we 
Protestants  reverence  the  earliest  Fathers  ;  and 
though  we  hold  them  to  be  fallible,  and  not 
unanimous,  sometimes  fanciful,  erroneous,  and 
pruned  and  corrupted  by  your  Church  ;  yet  we 
still  find  the  body  of  their  testimony  with  us,  and 
especially  on  fundamental  doctrines.  I  think  af- 
ter the  last  four  letters,  the  community  are  pre- 
pared to  admit  these  two  positions  :  1.  That  you 
depend  far  more  on  the  Fathers,  than  on  the 
Bible ;  and  2,  that  their  '  unanimous  consent'  if 
it  has  a  being,  is  by  no  means  in  your  favour. 


But  whatever  you  may  assert,  presuming  on  the  . 
fact  that  very  few  of  your  readers  have  access  to 
them,  it  will  not  be  denied  that  other  Roman  Ca- 
tholic writers  are  as  learned,  and  honest  as  your- 
self.    Let  us  see  what  they  say  of  some  of  the 
very  Fathers  whom  you  claim,  and  on  the  very 
doctrines   in   proof  of   which   you   quote   them. 
Cardinal  Baronius,  'who  is  a  Catholic  historian,' 
(Vol.  I.  p.  275.  Sec.  213.  Ann.  34.)  thus  writes  : 
'Although   the   most    Holy    Fathers,    whom   for 
their  great  learning,  we  rightly  call  the  Doctors 
of  the  Church,  were  indeed  above  others,  imbued 
with  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet  the  Catho- 
lic (Roman)  Church  does  not  always,  in  all  things 
follow    their   interpretation    of    the    Scriptures.' 
Bellarmine,  (De  Verbo  Dei  Lib.  3.  c.  x.)    'It 
is  one  thing  to  interpret  the  law  as  a  Doctor,  and 
another  thing,  as  a  Judge  :  for  expounding  as  a 
Doctor  learning  is  required ;  as  a  Judge,  authority. 
For  the  opinion  of  the  Doctor  is  to  be  followed  so 
far  as  reason  persuades ;  that  of  the  Judge  from 
necessity •-••  Wherefore  in  their  commentaries,  Au- 
gustine and  the  other  Fathers  supply  the  place  of 
teachers ;    but    the   Popes    and   Councils,   of  a 
Judge  commissioned  by   God.'     Cardinal    Caje- 
tan,   [In  Gen.  1.]     '  We  must  not  reject  a  new 
sense  of  the   Holy  Scriptures  because  it  differs 
from  the  ancient  Doctors ;  but  we  must  search 
more  exactly  the  context  of  Scripture  ;  and  if  it 
agree  [Si  quadrat]  praise  God  who  has  not  tied 
the   exposition   of  the   sacred  Scriptures  to   the 
sense  of   the   ancient   Doctors.'     Such   are    the 
principles  laid  down  by  three  of  your  Cardinals, 
two  of  whom  have  received  your  sanction.     Now 
let  us  for  a  moment  see  their  application.     Bel- 
larmine [De  Amiss.  Gra.  B.  4.  c.  15.]   tells  us, 
that  "  the  immaculate  conception"  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  though  not  an  article  of  faith,   is  not  to  be 
condemned;    and  '  that  they  who  do  it  resist  the 
decrees  of  Trent,  and  of  two  Popes ;  and  are  not 
to     be    considered    as    Catholics.'        Yet    your 
Bishop  Cane  says,  (Theol.  b.  7.  c.  1.)     '  All  the 
Holy  Fathers  with   one  voice  (uno  ore)  affirm  the 
blessed  Virgin  to  have  been  conceived  in  original 
sin.'  Here  they  flatly  contradict  each  other,  and  if 
Bellarmine   is   right,   none  of  the    Fathers  were 
Roman  Catholics:   or  if  wrong   the   Council  of 
Trent  erred.     Which  do  you  choose!     Cardinal 
Cusanus  (Exerc.  lib.   6)  writes,  '  certain  of  the 
ancient  Fathers  are  found  of  this  mind,  that  the 
bread  in  the  sacrament  is  not  transubstantiated,  nor 
changed  in  na/ure.'     Yet  Mr.  Hughes  claims  all 
the  Fathers  for  this  doctrine  !     Who  shall  be  be- 
lieved, the  learned  Cardinal,  or  the  Priest  expec- 
tant 1     Bellarmine  cites  Ignatius  (as  Mr.  Hughes 
did)  in  proof  of  the  real  presence.     (Lib.  2.  c.  2. 


284 


De  Euch.)  But  when  we  adduce  Ignatius  to 
prove  that  the  cup  is  to  be  given  to  all,  in  the  sa- 
crament, viz.  on  his  epistle  to  the  Philadelphians 
'  one  bread  is  broken  lor  all  ;  one  cup  is  distribut- 
ed to  all .•'  Bellarmine  rejects  the  author,  saying 
*  not  much  faith  is  to  be  put  in  the  Greek  copies  of 
Ignatius/'  (Euch b.  4. c.  26.)  Augustine  especial- 
ly is  grossly  trifled  with  in  this  way.  He  says  (De 
Mor.  Eccles.  c.  36.)  '  I  know  certain  worshippers 
of  tombs  and  pictures  whom  the  Church  condemn- 
eth.'  Bellarmine  remarks  on  this  (Delmag.  c.  16.) 
'Augustine  wrote  this  book  soon  after  his  conver- 
sion to  the  Catholic  faith  !'  On  the  famous  passage 
against  Transubstantiation  cited  by  me  from  Au- 
gustine in  my  last  letter  in  which  see  (1  Corinth. 
X.  3,  4.)  he  speaks  of  the  manna,  and  the  rock 
Christ:  Maldonat  the  Jesuit  thus  remarks  :  'I 
am  verily  persuaded  that  if  Augustine  had  been 
living  in  these  days  and  had  seen  the  Calvinists 
so  interpret  .St.  Paul,  he  would  have  been  of 
another  mind,  especially  being  such  an  enemy  to 
heretics.'  (In  John  6.  n  50)  Augustine  says, 
(contraduos  Eps.  Pelag.  &c.)  '  The  works  which 
are  done  without  faith,  though  they  seem  good,  are 
turned  into  sin.'.  Maldonat  says  of  this  :  '  We 
may  not  defend  that  opinion  which  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  did  of  late  justly  condemn;  although 
the  great  Father  St,  Augustine  seemed  to  be 
of  that  opinion.'  (Com.  in  Matth.  vii.  18.)  Here 
is  a  Roman  Catholic  author,  of  at  least  as  good 
title  to  infallibility  as  Mr.  Hughes,  who  con- 
demns Augustine,  the  '  great  Father,'  and  held 
him  up  as  contradictory  to,  and  condemned  by 
the  ' great  Council'  of  Trent !  Augustine  (De 
verbo  Dom.  serm.  13)  on  the  words  of  Christ, 
*  Thou  art  Peter  and  on  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church,''  says  '  The  rock  ioas  Christ.'  Stap'eton 
answers  (Princip.  Doc.  lib.  6.  c.  3.)  '  It  was  a 
human  error  caused  by  the  diversity  of  the  Greek 
and  Latin  tongue,  which  either  he  was  ignorant 
of,  or  marked  not.'  Bellarmine  (b.  1.  de  Pont.  c. 
10)  condemns  the  Father  saying  'Augustine  was 
deceived  by  his  ignorance  only  of  the  Hebrew 
tongue.'  Bishop  Cane  (Loc.  Theo.  1.  7.  c.  3)  owns 
that  '  the  ancient  Fathers  sometimes  err,  and 
against  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  bring  forth  a 
monster.' 

I  could  fill  sheets  with  these  exceptions  to 
the  Fathers.  But  it  is  unnecessary.  Here  then 
we  clearly  discover  that  in  the  judgment  of  a 
crowd  of  Roman  Catholic  authors,  some  of 
whom  you  have  publicly  approved,  the  Fath- 
ers often  err;  they  contradict  each  other,  they 
oppose  the  Catholic  (Roman)  faith,  they  are  igno- 
rant of  the  learned  languages,  they  speak  like 
Calvinists,  they  misunderstood  Christ,  they  are 
fanciful,  they  are  not  to  be  followed,  the  Council 
of  Trent  condemned  them,  and  as  for  their 
'unanimous  consent,'  it  is  fietion  which  was 
never  found ;  while  '  the  Bible  is  a  nose  of  wax,' 
the  Fathers  have  as  many  faces  as  Proteus,  and 
are  to  be  used  or  rejected  as  occasion  may  require 
or  their  varying  opinions  permit.  When  we  add 
to  this,  that  the  Fathers  have  been  altered  and 
many  of  their  works  erased  and  Romanized,  it 
would  seem  indeed  a  slender  and  unstable  foun- 


dation,  to  build  a  religion  on  ;   especially  when 
'  their  unanimous  consent'  is  your  rule  of  faith. 

Never  did  sons  treat  Fathers  so  uncourteous- 
ly  as  the  loyal  Jesuits  treat  the  ancients,  while 
they  torture  them  into  their  service,  or  chastise 
them  for  their  Protestant  partialities.  Like  the 
ancient  necromancers  (Isaiah  viii.  19, — 21)  who 
forsook  '  the  law  and  the  testimony'  of  God,  they 
roam  through  the  '  wilderness'  of  the  Fathers 
'  hungry  and  hard  bestead  and  fret  themselves,' 
while  they  search  in  vain  for  their  unanimous  con- 
sent in  support  of  the  Papacy.  As  the  Scriptures 
fail  you  in  the  time  of  need,  so  we  find  the  Fath- 
ers cannot  help  you  ;  and  the  higher  you  rise  in 
antiquity  the  more  decidedly  Protestant  do  they 
become,  until  the  last  traces  of  Romanism  disap- 
pear amidst  the  better  light  of  the  ante-Nicene 
Fathers.  Before  I  dismiss  this  subject  it  is  due 
to  myself  to  say,  notwithstanding  all  your  pee- 
vish charges  and  unworthy  reflections,  that  I 
have  suppressed  nothing  in  my  various  extracts 
from  the  Fathers  which,  to  my  knowledge,  in  the 
least  degree  favoured  your  cause,  or  injured  mine. 
So  far  from  this,  ample  matter  of  the  strongest 
kind  in  my  favour,  has  been  omitted  to  make 
room  for  other  departments  of  the  argument.  If 
their  writings  could  be  presented  in  unbroken 
connexion,  the  argument  againstyou  would  appear 
in  tenfold  strength.  Itisyou  whoprofitby  insulated 
sentences  and  figurative  terms  uptorn  from  their  na-  - 
turai  relations  and  true  coherence.  Your  readers 
cannot  forget  Tertul!ian,and  Wesley,  and  Luther, 
and  Jewel,  who  were  made  by  you  to  speak  a 
language  so  foreign  from  their  meaning  by  the 
citation  of  disjointed  extracts.  Even  in  your  last 
letter,  while  charging  me  with  such  unfairness, 
you  leave  unnoticed  all  the  strong  passages  and 
enlarge  upon  those  which  seem  to  you  most  easily 
explained,  like  feeble  commentators  who  skip 
the  hard  places,  and  are  profound  and  redundant 
on  those  which  are  easy. 

II.  I  may  here,  as  properly  as  elsewhere,  allude 
to  your  last  and  feeble  struggle  for  Transubstan- 
tiation. You  say,  'I  maintain  that  this  very  con- 
cealment of  the  Eucharist  from  Pagans,  Jews, 
and  Catechumens,  is  by  itself  a  powerful  proof 
of  the  Catholic  doctrine.'  You  allude  in  this 
sentence  to  what  has  been  called  the  secret  dis- 
cipline of  the  early  Church,  i.  e.  the  custom 
which  originated  in  the  second  century  of  with- 
holding the  mysteries  of  Christianity  from  those 
who  were  not  initiated.  You  say,  1st,  'if  it 
were  mere  bread  and  wine  what  motive  could 
there  exist  to  conceal  it  V  Answer,  here  you 
take  for  granted,  that  the  only  thing  concealed 
was  the  doctrine  of  the  Eusharist.  Yet,  two 
sentences  above  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  whom  you 
cite,  distinctly  contradicts  you;  for  he  says,  'we 
declare  not  to  the  Gentiles  the  hidden  mysteries 
of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.'  Then  the 
Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  &c,  were  among  these 
mysteries?  I  return  then  your  question  upon 
you,  and  ask  what  motive  they  had  to  conceal 
these  mysteries?  Besides  there  is  no  evidence 
(as  Faber  triumphantly  shows  in  his  answer  to 
the  Bishop  of  Aire,)  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Eu- 


285 


charist  was  among  the  doctrinal  mysteries  at  all. 
Cyril  does  not  even  mention  it  in  the  passage 
just  quoted.  Of  course  your  inference  falls  to 
the  ground. 

2.  You  say,  '  When  they  were  accused  of  mur- 
dering a  child  and  feasting  on  its  flesh  in  their 
assemblies,'  it  would  have  been  easy  and  natural 
to  refute  the  calumny,  and  say  that  it  was  merely 
a  little  bread  and  wine  they  took  figuratively  in 
memory  of  Christ's  body  and  death.  But  this 
they  never  said  ;  even  when  they  were  tortured, 
as  was  sometimes  the  case,  to  force  them  into  a 
confession  of  what  it  was.'  Here  you  are  still 
more  unfortunate  than  before.  The  fact  is  di- 
rectly against  Transubstantiation.  During  the 
persecution  at  Lyons,  A.  D.  1'77,  'the  Pagans 
wishing  to  ascertain  the  secret  ceremonial  of  the 
Christians,  apprehended  their  slaves,  and  put 
them  to  the  torture.  Impatient  of  the  pain,  and 
having  nothing  to  tell  which  might  please  their 
tormentors,  the  slaves,  who  had  heard  their  mas- 
ters say  that  the  Eucharist  was  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  forthwith  communicated  this  cir- 
cumstance. Whereupon  the  tormentors,  fancy- 
ing that  it  was  literal  flesh  and  blood  served  up 
in  the  mysteries  of  the  Christians,  hastened  to 
inform  the  other  Pagans.  These  immediately 
apprehended  the  martyrs,  Sanctus  and  Blandina, 
and  endeavoured  to  extort  from  them  a  confession 
of  the  deed.  But  Blandina  readily  and  boldly 
answered,  how  can  those  Who  through  piety  ab- 
stain even  from  lawful  food,  be  capable  of  perpe- 
trating the  actions  which  you  allege  against 
them  ?'  These  are  the  words  of  Irse'neus  pre- 
served by  Ecumenius.  Those  slaves,  and  the 
Pagans  whom  they  had  informed,  mistook  the 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  as  the  Jews  did,  and 
you  do  now,  supposing  the  Christians  to  feed  on 
real  flesh.  But  these  Christians  denied  from  first 
to  last  that  it  was  literally  flesh  dad  blood  which 
was  served  up  for  them.  Was  not  this  a  denial 
of  the  real  presence?  Could  they  in  truth  have 
denied  that  they  did  eat  literal  flesh  if  they  had 
believed  Transubstantiation  ?  How  then,  this  ar- 
gument can  help  your  cause  I  confess  myself 
wholly  at  a  loss  to  determine.  3.  You  add  il  They 
would  not  have  celebrated  the  Eucharist  with 
doors  inviolably  closed,  for  even  the  High  Priest 
would  not  be  scandalized  at  seeing  them  eat  bread 
and  drink  wine,  though  he  might  if  he  saw  them 
adoring  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ.'  It  would  have 
been  hard  indeed  for  them  to  close  their  doors  to 
conceal  a  doctrine  which  they  did  not  believe,  and 
which  until  ages  after  was  never  heard  of!  They 
closed  their  doors  because  they  were  persecuted, 
as  well  as  because  of  their  mysteries ;  and  they 
were  persecuted,  and  they  worshipped  with  closed 
doors  long  before  they  were  charged  with  eating 
human  flesh.  And  as  to  the  Jews  and  High 
Priest,  it  was  worshipping  Christ  as  God  which 
scandalized  the  Jews  before  the  Eucharist  was 
instituted ;  and  you  have  sense  enough  to  know, 
that  the  early  Christians  might  worship  Christ 
as  we  do  now,  without  worshipping  the  bread. 
The  Jews  would  have  been  scandalized  by  the 
Protestant  doctrine  as  much  as  the  Papal,  exclud- 


ing however  the  dreadful  absurdity  and  idolatry 
of  Transubstantion. 

You  must  have  been  nodding  over  your  mid- 
night lamp,  when  you  make  me  to  say,  that 
'  Christ  could  remove  out  of  the  wall  or  door, 
space  for  his  body  to  enter  by  and  then  close  it  up 
again.'  My  words  were,  «  do  you  forget  that 
Christ  had  power  miraculously  to  open  a  passage 
for  his  body  through  the  door  or  wall  and  close  it 
again  V  Besides  this  perversion  you  entirely  omit 
the  preceding  and  the  succeeding  illustrations 
drawn  from  the  miraculous  opening  of  the  prison 
doors  for  the  Apostles;  and  from  the  transmission 
of  light  through  a  pain  of  glass.  But  it  is  plain 
that  you  write  for  those  who  from  prohibitions 
and  the  fear  of  light  read  your  letters  alone, 
and  see  my  arguments  as  they  are  reflected  in 
distorted  forms  from  your  pages  only.  The  coup- 
let from  Watts  to  which  you  refer,  needed  no 
comment.  In  expression  it  is  most  unhappy  ;  yet 
as  conveying  the  doctrine  that  He  who  was  born 
of  a  woman  was  also  God,  I  fully  subscribe  to  it; 
and  we  are  willing  to  bear  all  the  censures  to 
which  you  subject  us  for  refusing  to  worship  the 
body  of  Christ,  if  separated  from  his  divinity.  It 
is  his  divinity  which  we  adore;  and  believing 
his  divinity  and  humanity  inseparably  blended  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  we  worship  him.  But 
the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  is  idolatrous 
because  it  worships  his  body  alone ;  and  as  I 
proved  in  my  last  letter,  you  are  guilty  of  idolatry 
whether  the  doctrine  be  true  or  false.  But  why 
are  you  silent  on  the  argument  brought  against 
you  from  Hume?  Why  do  you  not  defend  youf 
doctrine  from  the  proof, of  leading  to  infidelity,  or 
else  give  it  up?  And  where  is  the  expected  an- 
swer to  my  seven  separate  exposures  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  mass  ?  Can  you  not  meet  them  ?  And 
yet  own  that  it  is  your  chief  business  to  offer  this 
sacrifice  ?  Will  you  leave  your  chief  business  and 
your  chief  gain  thus  unsheltered  in  the  field  of  ar- 
gument? And  where  is  now  your  communion  in 
one  kind  ?  Have  you  nothing  to  say  for  this  dar- 
ing act?  Must  not  our  readers  see  that  it  is  no 
answer  to  all  I  have  said  on  this  subject  to  remind 
me  that  a  Protestant  Synod  in  France  once  said 
half-communion  was  right?  Neither  you  nor  I 
hold  to  the  infallibility  of  a  Protestant  Synod. 
You  leave  us  then  to  sing  the  mournful  coronah 
of  these  departed  doctrines;  while  you  take  up 
the  lamentation  of  the  poet, 

"  Come  then  expressive  silence,  muse  their  praise." 

How  you  will  next  look  your  friends  in  the  face 
during  the  sacrifice  of  Mass,  or  withhold  from 
them  .again  the  cup  in  the  Eucharist,  it  mustbe  for 
conscience  and  pained  memory  to  answer.  You 
have  at  least  this  consolation  uttered  once  by  way 
of  comfort,  '  You  could  do  no  more  ;  for  you  have 
done  all  you  could.' 

As  to  the  ancient  Liturgies,  every  scholar 
knows  that  they  are  replete  with  forgeries  of  the 
church  of  Rome.  The  Liturgy  attributed  to  St. 
Peter,  mentions  St.  Cyprian,  who  died  some  two 
hundred  years  after  Peter  !  Cardinal  Bona"  owns 
it  to  have  been  spurious.     The  Ethiopic  Liturgy, 


386 


attributed  to  St.  Matthew,  speaks  of  the  Synods 
of  Nice,  Constantinople,  and  Ephesus,  which 
were  held  centuries  after  Matthew's  death.  St. 
James's  Liturgy  speaks  of  Monasteries,  which 
every  one  knows  originated  ages  after  his  day  ; 
and  it  quotes  from  Paul's  Epistles,  most  of 
which  were  written  after  James's  death.  The 
ceremonies  mentioned  in  these  Liturgies  were  also 
wholly  unknown  in  the  Apostles'  days.  If  you 
say  these  things  were  added  to  them  in  after 
ages  ;  then  why  not  those  too  on  Transubstantia- 
tion  1  They  did  not  exist  at  that  day  ;  but  allow 
they  did  ;  then,  as  they  have  been  corrupted, 
■What  proof  do  they  afford  you  1  As  to  the  Litur- 
gy of  the  Jacobites  which  you  adduce,  it  is 
strang-e  that  their  book  of  Homilies  and  Brevi- 
ary, should  contradict  their  Liturgy  ;  and  still 
more  strange  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Inquisi- 
tion at  Goa,  should  condemn  these  books  for  re- 
jecting '  Transubstantiation  ;  and  )7et  that  their 
Liturgy  should  contain  this  doctrine.  As  to 
your  own,  you  do  not  deny  that  it  has  been  alter- 
ed to  suit  your  doctrine  ;  for  whereas  the  ancient 
form  ran  thus,  '  make  this  oblation  to  us  allow- 
able, rational,  and  acceptable,  which  is  the  figure 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,'1  it  is  now 
changed  to  read  thus,  '  that  the  oblation  may  be 
made  to  us  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord;"1  drop- 
ping '  figure'  from  the  ancient  form  which  was 
plain  Protestant  doctrine.  Who  then  can  trust 
to  your  testimonies  1 

III.  As  the  matter  of  the  present  letter  is  ne- 
cessarily multifarious,  we  may  as  properly  here 
as  any  where,  canvass  your  answers  to  my  seve- 
ral questions. 

1st  Question.  '  Did  Pope  Liberius  subscribe 
the  Arian  creed1?'  Mr-  Hughes's  answer.  'I  say 
that  Pope  Liberius  did  not  sign  the  Arian  Creed 
in  the  Arian  sense  or  meaning.''  It  is  obvious  that 
this  answer  is  a  most  disingenuous  evasion;  I 
therefore  repeated  the  question  in  my  last  letter, 
wishing  to  know  in  what  sense  Liberius  did  sign 
it.  But  the  oracle  is  dumb  ;  it  gives  no  response 
to  this  question.  I  have  already  proved  (in  Letter 
No.  28,)  that  this  Pope  did  adopt  the  Arian  Creed. 
IUmay  be  proper,  however,  here  to  add,  that  Du- 
pin  with  bis  usual  candour,  says,  (pa^e  62.  vol. 
2.)  '  Liberius  did  not  only  subscribe  the  con- 
demnation of  St.  Athanasius,  but  he  also  consent- 
ed to  an  Heretical  Confession  of  Faith.'  The 
sainted  Hilary  (In  Fragm  :)  says  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith  signed  by  Liberius;  '  this  is  the  Arian 
perfidy.  I  anathematize  thee  and  thy  compan- 
ions, O  Liberius,  and  again,  and  a  third  time  I 
anathematize  thee.'  Athanasius  confirms  the  re- 
lation of  Hilary,  and  denounces  the  apostacy  of 
Liberius  '  who  through  fear  of  death,  subscribed.' 
Jerome,  in  his  Catalogue  and  Chronicon,  states  the 
same  fact;  so  also  Fortunatian,  Philostorgius, 
Damasus,  and  Sozomen;  and  in  more  modern 
times  Platina,  Eusebius,  Mezeray,  Bruys,  Peta- 
vius,  &c.  &c.  all  testify  to  the  same  fact.  From 
these  statements  there  result  two  conclusions. 
1.  The  head  of  the  infallible  church  from  whom, 
according  to  Mr.  Hughes,  all  right  to  preach  the 
Gospel    and  administer  its  sacraments  proceed, 


and  to  whom  'every  creature  must  be  subject  in 
order  to  be  saved',  apostatized  into  damnable  he- 
resy. 2.  It  appears,  I  regret  to  say,  how  little 
faith  is  to  be  put  in  the  statements  of  my  Rev. 
opponent,  who  flatly  contradicts  the  testimony  of 
antiquity  on  this  subject. 

2d  Question.  'Did the  Councils  of  Sirmium  and 
Ariminum  adopt  Arian  Greeds  V  Mr.  Hughes's 
answer.  '  No  council  recognized  by  the  Catho- 
lic church,  ever  adopted  the  Arian  Creed.  For 
the  errors  of  other  councils  or  general  assemblies, 
the  church  is  not  accountable.'  This  reply  is 
curious  enough.  It  involves  however  the  admis- 
sion that  the  said  Councils  did  adopt  the  Arian 
heresy.  This  1  have  already  proved  (see  Letter 
No.  28,)  and  as  one  of  them  was  certainly  approv- 
ed by  the  Pope,  so  on  your  own  definition  it  was 
an  infallible  council  ;  and  therefore  it  is  an  article 
of  faith  in  the  Roman  church,  binding  on  all  her 
members  at  this  day,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not 
God,  that  his  divinity  is  a  figment,  and  Unita- 
rians are  right.  It  is  a  striking  fact,  which  I  hope 
to  have  the  opportunity  soon  of  publicly  proving, 
that  it  is  not  agreed  in  the  church  of  Rome  which 
ere  infallible  councils;  and  there  is  just  as  much 
evidence  that  the  Pope  and  council  who  adopted 
the  Arian  Creed  were  infallible,  as  that  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  was. 

3.  'Does  the  validity  of  ordinations,  adminis- 
trations of  the  sacraments,  &c,  depend  on  the 
intention  of  Popes,  Bishops,  and  Priests'  ?  Mr. 
Hughes's  answer.  '  In  heaven  or  on  earth,  in 
time  or  in  eternity  there  is  no  motive  for  him  (the 
Priest)  to  withhold  his  intention  ;  and  deliberate 
wicked  actions  without  any  motive  or  inducement, 
are  not  to  be  presumed.'  This  is  strange  logic 
indeed  !  The  Council  of  Trent  must  have 
thought  very  differently  when  they  enacted  as 
follows.  (Gth  Chap.  11th  Canon.)  'Whosoever 
shall  affirm  that  when  ministers  perform  and  con- 
fer a  Sacrament,  it  is  not  necessary  that  they 
should  at  least  have  the  intention  to  do  what  the 
church  does,  let  him  be  accursed.'  Bellarmine 
must  have  thought  differently,  for  he  says,  (Lib. 
3.  c.  8.  Justif :)  '  no  man  can  be  certain  with  the 
certainty  of  faith  that  he  receives  a  true  Sacra- 
ment; because  it  depends  on  the  minister's  inten- 
tion to  consecrate  it ;  and  none  can  see  another's 
intention.'  Now  if  all  Popes  and  Priests  be  not 
perfect  and  infallible  they  may  lack  this  inten- 
tion. Your  answer  concedes,  impliedly,  that  if 
they  should  lack  it,  evils  must  result.  The 
fact  is  we  have  divers  examples  of  sacrilegious 
Priests  and  concealed  Jews,  who  have  owned  at 
their  death  that  during  their  whole  Priesthood  in 
the  Roman  church  they  never  had,  in  any  of  their 
consecrating  acts  that  intention  which  the  church 
of  Rome  prescribes.  Then  in  such  cases  these 
men  having  many  thousand  souls  under  their 
care  must,  on  your  own  doctrine,  have  ruined 
them  all.  The  infants  they  appeared  to  baptize, 
were  not  baptized,  therefore  by  your  creed  they 
are  lost;  when  they  appeared  to  consecrate  the 
bread  in  the  Eucharist,  they  did  not,  and  there- 
fore the  thousands  to  whom  they  administered  it 
were  guiltv  of  idolatry ;    no  marriage  ceremony 


2S7 


performed  by  them  was  valid,  therefore  all  who 
were  thus  united  by  them  lived  in  adultery,  and 
their  children  were  illegitimate;  all  their  uses  of 
Extreme  Unction  were  fraudulent,  therefore  all 
who  died  under  their  hands  are  lost  forever ;  the 
innumerable  souls  in  Purgatory  for  whom  they 
offered  up  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  are  still  held 
there,  because,  from  lack  of  intention  it  was  no 
real  sacrifice.  The  same  remarks  may  be  ex- 
tended to  every  Bishop  and  every  Pope.  A 
Pope,  centuries  ago,  may  have  lacked  intention  in 
conferring  orders,  and  all  the  Bishops,  and  all 
the  Priests  who  derived  orders  from  him,  remained 
laymen  for  life,  because  he  lacked  intention  ;  and 
all  their  acts  were  invalid:  the  sacraments  they  ad- 
ministered were  null  and  void,  so  were  their  ordi- 
nations;  and  the  innumerable  millions  of  souls  to 
whom  they  and  their  successors  administered  from 
age  to  age  were  lost,  and  the  ten  thousand  Priests 
and  Bishops  who  got  their  ordination  from  this 
poisoned  source,  acted  without  authority,  and  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  may  be  one  of  them.  Who 
can  tell  ]  Surely  Pope  Sergius  III  ;  Pope  John 
XI;  Pope  Alexander  VI  ;  (whom  Baronius  owns 
a  true  Pope)  could  not  have  had  intention  to  do 
their  duty  in  any  of  these  acts  ;  and  yet  from 
these  filthy  fountains  the  stream  of  ordination  has 
flowed  in  successive  centuries  through  all  the 
Roman  church,  and  down  from  geueration  to 
generation  of  the  Priesthood  unto  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Hughes  himself!  Catharin,  Bishop  of  Minori, 
stated  this  evil  with  appalling  force  before  the 
Council  of  Trent.  '  Behold  (says  he,)  here,  how 
by  the  wickedness  of  a  minister,  we  find  in  one 

sole  act  a  million  of  nullities  in  Sacraments 

If  it  should  happen  that  a  Priest  who  hath  charge 
of  four  or  five  thousand  souls,  should  be  an 
unbeliever,  but  withal  a  great  hypocrite,  and  that 
in  the  absolution  of  penitents,  and  the  Baptism  of 
little  children,  and  the  consecration  of  the  Eu- 
charist, he  should  have  a  secret  intention  not  to  do 
what  the  church  doth,  we  must  conclude  the  little 
children  damned,  the  penitents  unabsolved,  and 
all  deprived  of  the  fruits  of  the  holy  communion.' 
Father  Paul,  the  Roman  Catholic  historian  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  says  (B.  2.  p.  226.)  '  the 
divines  (of  the  Council)  did  not  approve  this  doc- 
trine, yet  were  troubled  and  knew  not  how  to  re- 
solve the  reason;  but  they  still  defended  that  the 
true  intention  of  the  minister  was  necessary, 
either  actual  or  virtual.'  If  then,  there  is  the 
least  certainty  in  any  sacrament  or  ordination  of 
the  church  of  Rome,  or  if  there  is  the  least  salis- 
factory  proof  that  the  living  Pope,  Cardinals, 
Arch-bishops,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  of 
the  church  of  Rome  embrace  one  single  ordained 
man,  who  has  'any  divine  right  to  exercise  the 
Christian  ministry  more  than  other  educated  lay-' 
men  ;'  (See  Mr.  Hughes'  5th  Question.)  then  I 
will  own  that  it  is  possible  to  prove,  and  right  to 
believe  an  impossibility. 

The  4th  question,  on  the  subject  of  schisms  in 
the  Popedom,  plurality  of  Popes,  &c.  Mr.  Hughes 
has  also  evaded  ;  but  my  previous  letters  have  so 
fully  laid  this  subject  bare,  that  I  need  not  dwell 
on  it  here. 


My  5th  question,  touching  the  liberty  of  the 
press,  a'nd  the  '  prohibiting  committee'  at  Rome, 
Mr.  Hughes.  tnus  obliquely  touches.  "About  the 
freedom  of  the  press  at  Koine,  and  the  '  Prohibit- 
ing Committee'  which  you  arc  pleased  to  imagine 
fbr  the  benefit  of  'all  the  church,'  I  answer,  that 
the  latter  docs  not  exist,  and  the  former  is  a  ques- 
tion on  which  every  man  may  abound  in  his  own 
sense."  Here  then,  you  again  deny  an  historical 
fact.  The  Council  of  Trent,  in  its  25th  session, 
enacted  that  a  Committee  which  that  body  had 
appointed,  acting  for  the  council  and  under  the 
Pope,  should  draw  up  and  publish  an  Index  of 
books  which  were  to  be  prohibited  to  the  whole 
church.  This  committee  did  accordingly  draw 
up  such  an  Index,  and  published  it,  accompanied 
by  ten  most  tyrannical  rules  sanctioned  by  the 
Pope,  and  binding  on  all  the  church.  This  Com- 
mittee is  permanent,  and  from  year  to  year  has 
added  to  their  work,  until  now  the  Index  which 
is  only  a  catalogue  of  prohibited  books,  makes  a 
large  volume.  I  have  a  copy  of  this  book  now  in 
my  possession,  printed  at  Rome  A.  D.  1787,  by 
order  of  the  Pope.  In  the  title  page  it  is  written, 
'  In  this  edition  are  inserted  in  their  proper  places, 
the  books  recently  prohibited,  even  to  the  year 
1787.'  The  Brief  of  the  Pope,  of  the  same  date, 
and  the  ten  rules  of  the  standing  Committee,  are 
prefixed  to  the  work,  as  also  Decrees  concerning 
prohibited  books,  Instructions,  Constitutions,  &c. 
for  regulating  the  press.  The  Pope  tells  us  in 
his  Brief,  that  the  said  Index  is  binding  on  all 
persons,  every  where,  under  pain  of  such  punish- 
ment as  is  therein  and  elsewhere  denounced.  In 
this  base  book  we  find  such  works  as  Locke's, 
Milton's,  Galileo's,  &c.  &c,  and  in  fact  all  wri- 
tings containing  any  thing  contra-religionem 
Catholicam,  '  against  the  Catholic  Religion.' 
Thus  is  a  war  of  extermination  waged  by  the 
authority,  of  the  church  against  letters,  liberty, 
and  conscience ;  and  thus  does  the  church  of 
Rome  shrink  in  conscious  error  and  by  ivicked 
means  from  free  inquiry  ;  and  thus  is  Mr.  Hughes 
exposed  when  he  denies  that  such  a  Committee 
exists.  This  book  is  open  for  inspection  at  the 
Education  Rooms,  No.  29  Sansom  street,  where 
gentlemen  may  call  and  see  for  themselves.  The 
4th  rule  which  we  have  often  quoted,  prohibits  the 
having,  or  reading,  or  selling  of  God's  holy  ivorcl  in 
any  living  language,  except  by  a  written  permis- 
sion from  the  Inquisitor,  or  Bishop,  with  the  advice 
of  a  priest  or  confessor.  In  Letter  No.  26  I  pre- 
sented at  large  a  decree  of  the  great  Lateran  Council 
against  the  freedom  of  printing,  which  you  have 
never  noticed.  The  first  rule  of  the  standing  com- 
mittee at  Rome,  condemns  all  books  which  had 
been  condemned  by  the  Popes  or  general  Coun- 
cils, hi/ore  A.  D.  1515;  the  creed  of  Pius  IV. 
confirms  all  previous  canons  and  decrees  of  Ge- 
neral Councils,  and  of  course  this  decree  against 
the  freedom  of  the  press ;  and  the  reigning  Pope  de- 
n ounces  the  liberty  of  the  press  as  '  that  fatal  li- 
cence of  which  we  cannot  entertain  sufficient 
horror.'  From  these  facts  it  appears  that  the 
liberty  of  the  press  is  proscribed  by  the  decrees 
of  Councils  and  acts  of  Popes,  which  are  binding 


288 


upon  every  Roman  Catholic  on  earth  ;  and  that  a 
standing  committee  exists  at  Rome,  (of  which 
Mr.  Hughes  is  ashamed,  and  which  he  has  the 
hardihood  to  deny)  to  enforce  these  decrees 
against  personal  and  civil  liberty.  In  your  an- 
swer you  utter  this  extraordinary  sentence : 
'About  the  freedom  of  the  press,  at  Rome,  every 
man  may  abound  in  his  own  sense.'  Then  it 
seems  you  are  afraid  to  condemn  these  decrees, 
lest  haply  you  be  found  fighting  against  Rome; 
and  you  are  afraid  to  defend  them  before  the  Ame- 
rican people,  who  justly  consider  the  freedom  of 
the  press  the  palladium  of  their  civil  and  reli- 
gious rights.  Will  not  such  evasions  convince 
a  free  people  that  your  system  is  at  enmity 
with  the  freedom  of  the  press ?  Are  not  such 
unmanly  subterfuges  anti-American  as  well  as 
anti-Christian?  What!  an  American  citizen  de- 
cline approving  the  liberty  of  the  press  ?  Is  it 
not  apparent  that  you  are  afraid  of  the  subject,  and 
that  the  Papacy  and  the  republic  cannot  flourish 
together?  «fW 

In  answer  to  the  seventh  question,  you  say,  '  I 
answer,  that  in  my  opinion,  religion  and  science 
suffered  by  the  supression  of  the  Jesuits,  and  that 
both  are  gainers  by  their  restoration.  This  opin- 
ion is  founded  on  the  fact  that  they  are  hated  for 
their  zeal,  and  admired  for  their  learning  by  all  the 
infidels  in  Europe.  As  to  the  Inquisition  it  may 
have  been  a  good  thing  abused.'  This  is  an  omi- 
nous avowal  !  I  have  before  me  the  Bull  or 
Brief  of  Clement  the  14th,  dated  A.  D.  1773,  for  j 
the  suppression  of  the  order  of  the  Jesuits.  In 
the  course  of  this  Bull  the  Pope  tells  us  that  not-  j 
withsanding  his  own,  and  his  predecessors  efforts, 
the  most  violent  contentions  pervaded  nearly 
the  whole  world  concerning  both  the  doctrines 
and  morals  of  the  Jesuits,  and  that  these  dis- 
sensions especially  from  without,  were  created 
by  accusations  against  the  society  for  amassing 
wealth;  that  to  his  great  grief,  all  the  remedies 
applied  by  him  to  restore  the  peace  of  the  church 
had  failed,  so  that  these  clamours  against  them 
daily  increasing,  at  length  seditions,  tumults  and 
scandals  occurred,  which  weakened  and  dissolved 
the  bonds  of  Christian  love,  and  violently  inflamed 
the  minds  of  the  faithful  with  party  animosities 
and  rancour;  that  at  length  the  king  of  France, 
the  king  of  Spain,  the  king  of  Portugal,  and  the 
king  of  the  two  Sicilies,  who  had  once  been  fa-; 
mous  for  their  great  liberality  to  the  Jesuits,  ex* 
pelled  them  from  their  kingdoms,  finding  that  to 
be  the  only  way  to  heal  the  divisions  by  which 
their  Christian  people  were  torn  even  in  theTm- 
som  of  the  Holy  Mother  Church.  He  proceeds 
to  say,  that  lasting  peace  could  not  be  restored  to 
the  church  while  the  society  existed  ;  that  it  had 
ceased  to  do  the  good  for  which  it  was  establish- 
ed, and  that  the  laws  of  prudence,  and  the  best  go- 
vernment of  the  universal  church,  required  him°to 
extinguish  and  suppress  the  order  of  the  Jesuits  ; 
which  he  accordingly  did.  This,  you  will  mark, 
was  only  sixty  years  ago  ;  and  it  was  done  for  the 
above  reasons,  not  by  '  infidels,'  but  by  the  head 
of  the  Universal  Church ,-  and  became  a  law  bind- 
ing on  the  conscience  of  all  the  faithful.     How 


Mr.   Hughes  will  settle  this  question  with  the 
Pope,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say.     These  Jesuits  have 
in   succession  been  expelled  from    almost  every 
kingdom  upon  earth.     Bishop  Taylor,  in  his  Dis- 
suasive from  Popery,  has  proved,  with  masterly 
skill,  that  their  principles  and  practices  are  incom- 
patible with  the  safety  of  governments,  destruc- 
tive of  Christian   morals,  and  even   of  Christian 
society,  where  they  prevail.     Pascal*  who   was 
himself  a  Roman  Catholic,  has  written  his  Provin- 
cial Letters  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  the  detes- 
table principles  and  infamous  morals  of  the  order 
of  the  Jesuits.     The  Jesuit's   Catechism  is  an- 
other work,  which  in  a    large   volume  exposes 
their  enormities,  intrigues,  assassinations,  disso- 
lute   principles,   and   dangerous   influence  in  the 
church  and  state.   Their  own  Secreta  Monita,  'se- 
cret instructions,'  now  published  in  this  country, 
in  a  separate  volume,  having  been  providentially 
brought  to  light,  expose  their  true  character  upon 
their  own   showing.     This  Society  has  recently 
been  revived  by  the  Pope,  as  -a  fit   instrument  to 
aid   the   Papacy  in    its  expiring  struggle.     The 
successive  revolutions  of  Europe  have  shaken  the 
Papacy  to  its  centre  ;  the  advancing  light  of  the 
age,  the  increasing  love  of  liberty  among  the  peo- 
ple,   and   the    repeated    conquests    which    they 
liave  made  of  their  dearest  rights,  both  civil  and 
religious,  from  priest-craft  and  king-craft  in  the 
old   world,    have   lessened   beyond  measure   the 
power  of  the  Papacy,  and  left  crowds  of  off-cast 
Priests  and  Jesuits  without  employment.     These 
men,   in    augmenting  numbers,    are  seeking  our 
shores.  -The  fall  of  tl%Papacy  in   Europe  thus 
gives  it  a  temporary  impulse  in  our  beloved  coun- 
try.   These  are  the  accessions  of  which  you  boast : 
not  proselytes  from  Protestants,  as  you  would  have 
us    think,   but  the  dregs  of  Jesuitism  cast  from 
Europe  upon  our  country.     Once,  guileless  Pro- 
testants  confided  their  children  to  the  training  of 
these  men.     But  it  is  becoming  apparent  that  they 
will  do  so  no  more.     Let  them  work  their  machi- 
nations ;  but  Protestant  parents  have  learned,  at 
length,  not  to  trust  a  Jesuit  with  the  formation  of 
their  children's  minds  and  hearts.     I  speak  of  the 
Priesthood  and  not  of  the  people   of  your  church. 
The  people  are  the  most  enlightened  Roman  Ca- 
Jbolics  on  earth.     We  have  much   to   hope  from 
the  influence   of   liberty  and    Gospel-light  upon 
them:  and  even  now  you  retain   their  allegiance 
by  hiding  from  their  view  the  real  deformities  of 
the  Papacy;  and  by  repressing,  without  ceasing, 
that  aspiration  after  religious  liberty  which  has 
begun  to  glow  in  the  breasts  of  all  men. 

Your  apology  for  the  Inquisition  shall  stand  as 
its  own  expressive  comment."  'May  have  been 
a  good  institution  !'  And  can  you  say  this  in  the 
face  of  your  country  ?  Have  you  read  its  his- 
tory ?  Have  you  counted  its  racks  ?  Have  you 
heard  the  groans  of  its  innumerable  victims  ? 
Have  you  examined  its  filthy  seraglios?  Paul 
the  IV.  called  it  the  'battering-ram  of  heresy;' 
and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes,  in  a  late  letter,  talked 
of  the  Roman  church  as  having  '  branded''  every 
heresy.  I  wish  that  my  limits  allowed  me  to  give 
"he  history  of  the  institution,  that  I   might  tell 


1v 

jsaaes,  its  inqiiis 


289 

and 


my  country  of  its  crusades,  its  inquisitors 
its  victims,  (who  are  only  considered  innocent 
when,  hy  mistake,  a  Papist  is  arrested  for  a  Pro- 
testant;) of  its  warfare  against  the  press,  the 
Bible,  the  morality  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  rights 
of  man.  Let  my  readers  consult  Baker,  or  Lim- 
borh,  or  Geddes,  or  Lavalle,  or  the  Key  to  Po- 
pery, or  any  history  of  those  countries  in  which 
it  has  been  established,  if  they  would  learn  how  (as 
Bellarmine  says)  the  church  destroys  Heretics,  and 
how  useful  the  Inquisition  is.  In  the  mean  time, 
*let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes 
says,  'it  may  have  been  a  good  thing  abused.' 
Perhaps  the  next  most  dreadful  engine  of  ty- 
rannic power  beside  Jhe  Inquisition  and  the  jjj^ 
sade,  is  the  Papal  Im^ict..  (Phis  is  no  'loss 
than  stopping  the  connexion  between  Heaven  and 
a  whole  state  or  nation  that  has  offended  the 
Pope.  This  tremendous  censure  has  been  exe- 
cuted in  France,  Italy,  and  Germany,  not  to  men- 
tion the  famous  effort  of  the  Pope  to  crush  the 
Republic  of  Venice,  for  daring  to  interfere  with 
the  property  of  Ecclesiastics  within  that  state. 
Hume,  who  surely  was  not  a  friend  to  Protestants, 
(See  Hist,  of  England,  Chap.  XL  reign  of  John.) 
gives  us  the  following  fearful  account  of  the 
Pope's  Interdict  on  that  realm:  "The  sentence 
of  interdict  was  at  that  time  the  great  instru- 
ment of  vengeance  and  policy  employed  by  the 
court  of  Rome ;  was  denounced  against  sove 
reio-ns  for  the  lightest  offences  ;  and  made  the 
guilt  of  one  person  involve  the  ruin  of  millions 
even  in  their  spiritual  and  eternal  welfare.  Tl 
execution  of  it  was  calculated  to  strike  the  sens* 
in  the  highesi  degree,  and  operate  with  irresist- 
ible force  on  the  superstitious  minds  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  nation  was  of  a  sudden  deprived  of  all 
exterior  exercise  of  its  religion  :  the  altars  were 
despoiled  of  their  ornaments;  the  crosses,  the 
relics,  the  images,  the  statues  of  the  Saints  were 
laid  on  the  ground  ;  and,  as  if  the  air  itself  were 
profaned,  and  might  pollute  them  by  its  contact, 
the  Priests  carefully  covered  them  up,  even  from 
their  own  approach  and  veneration.  The  use  of 
bells  entirely  ceased  in  all  the  churches;  the 
bells  themselves  were  removed  from  the  stee- 
ples, and  laid  on  the  ground  with  other  sacred 
utensils.  Mass  was  celebrated  with  shut  doors, 
and  none  but  the  Priests  were  admitted  to  that 
holy  institution.  The  laity  partook  of  no  reli- 
gious rite,  except  baptism  to  new-horn  infants, 
and  the  communion  to  the  dying;  the  dead  wer<J 
not  interred  in  consecrated  ground  ;  they  wer 
thrown  into  ditches,  or  buried  ip  common  fields 
and  their  obsequies  were  not  attended  with  pray 
ers  or  any  hallowed  ceremony.  Marriage  was 
celebrated  in  the  church  yards  ;  and  that  every 
action  in  life  might  hear  the  marks  of  this  dread 
ful  situation,  the  people  were  prohibited  the  use 
of  meat,  as  in  Lent,  or  times  of  the  highest  pen- 
ance ;  were  debarred  from  all  pleasures  and  en- 
tertainments, and  even  to  salute  each  other,  or  so 
much  as  to  shave  their  beards,  and  give  any 
decent  attention  to  their  person  and  apparel. 
Every  circumstance  carried  symptoms  of  the 
deepest  distress,  and  of  the  most  immediate  ap- 


- 


(prehension  of  divine  vengeance  and  indigna- 
tion/' The  Pope  afterwards  proceeded  to  excom- 
municate the  King  ;  next,  to  absolve  his  subjects 
from  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  to  declare  every 
one  excommunicated,  who  had  any  intercourse 
with  him;  he  promised  John's  throne  to  the 
King  of  France,  who  raised  an  army  to  secure 
it;  and  it  was  not  until  John  had  resigned  Eng- 
land and  Ireland  to  the  Pope,  and  agreed  to  pay 
the  annual  tax  of  one  thousand  marks,  as  feud- 
atory to  the  Pope,  that  he  was  permitted 
again  to  wear  his  crown.  Here  is  the  blessed- 
ness of  Papal  domination  ;  '  a  good  institution 
abused  !' 

8.  A  word  upon  your  answer  to  the  8th  ques- 
tion, in  which  you  say,  '  so  far  as  they  (that  is, 
the  Jewish  traditions)  regarded  the  proof  of  Jew- 
ish faith,  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  I  do  not 
reject  them.'  You  owned  in  a  previous  letter 
that  the  Jewish  church  was  infallible,  until  su- 
perseded by  Christ;  of  course  all  their  traditions 
to  that  time  were  infallible.  And  now,  from  the 
above  answer  it  follows,  that  the  Jewish  tradition 
of  the  canon  was  true ;  for  this  regarded  their 
faith  at  the  very  foundation.  But  they  rejected 
the  Apocryphal  Books.  Hence,  your  church  errs 
in  holding  them.  Again,  it  was  a  Jewish  tradi- 
tion touching  faith  that  the  Messiah  was  to  he  a 
temporal  Prince;  even  Christ's  Apostles,  when 
first  called,  held  this  article  of  faith-  Hence,  on 
your  admission,  this  doctrine,  though  so  absurd 
and  false,  must  be  true.  I  need  not  multiply 
points  ;  but  it  is  a  fact,  that  the  Jewish  traditions 
were  better  supported  than  those  of  your  church  ; 
and  yours  and  theirs  must  stand  or  fall  together. 
As  Jesus  said  of  theirs,  so  is  it  true  of  yours,  that 
you  'make  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect  by 
your  Traditions,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com- 
mandments of  men.'  (See  Mark  7th  chap.) 
The  character  of  these  questions  induced  you,  I 
suppose,  to  pass  in  silence  those  which  remain. 
They  are  certainly  unanswerable  on  your  princi- 
ples. Let  me  simply  repeat  them  here  almost 
without  comment  as  unartswered  by  you. 

Is  there  any  evidence  of  the  Pope's  supremacy 
before  the  Council  of  Nice  1  I  answer,  no.  The 
6th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  passed  A.  D. 
325,  puts  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  the  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  and  of  Rome,  on  the  same  footing.  Has 
the  Pope  a  right  to  put  a  kingdom  under  interdict, 
or  to  depose  a  monarch  or  chief  magistrate  1  No: 
and  yet  the  Pope  claims  it;  Popish  writers  defend 
it;  Popes  have  often  done  it;  and  Mr.  Hughes  is 
afraid  of  the  question. 

Did  the  second  Council  of  Pisa  decree  a  Refor- 
mation in  faith  or  not]  It  did.  Did  the  council 
of  Lateran,  in  1215,  pass  an  anathema  against 
those  rulers  who  should  tax  ecclesiastics  ?  It  did  : 


there  is  a  decree  on  that  subject.  Is  not  the  second 
commandment  dropped  from  the  Catechisms 
which  are  in  common  use  in  your  church  in  Europe 
ind  America'?  I  have  proved  that  it  is.  Have 
lot  '  the  Fathers'  been  altered  and  pruned  by  au- 
hority  in  your  church  1  Yes;  there  is  ample  evi- 
lence  of  the  fact.     Are  the  Missal  and  the  Bre- 


/ 


viary  authorized  and  standard  works  ?  They  are; 
but  Mr.  Hughes  seems  ashamed  of  the  latter. 

To  the  only  remaining-  question,  viz  :  '  Were 
the  Apostles  priests  when  they  administered  Ex- 
treme Unction,  Mark  vi.  13.?'  You  answer:  'The 
Apostles  were  not  Priests;  neither  was  it  'Extreme 
Unction  they  administered  in  the  case  referred  to, 
Mark  vi.  13.'  The  Council  o<"  Trent  (Sess.  14. 
Can.  1.)  expressly  says,  '  that  Extreme  Unction 
was  instituted  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;'  and  you 
allow  that  none  hut  Jesus  Christ  could  institute  a 
sacrament;  yet  you  say  "It  was  not  Extreme  Unc- 
tion they  administered.'  Mark  vi.  13.  Pray  then 
when  was  it  instituted  ?     If  not  then.  Christ  never 


tion  of  fact.  If  the  Reformers  protested  without 
pause,  it  was  heresy  ,-  and  if  they  left  the  church 
without  cause,  it  was  schism.-  if  they  had  cause, 
then  the  church  of  Borne  was  guilty  both  of 
heresy  and  schism.  Now,  I  have,  in  a  long-  series 
of  almost  unnoticed  expositions,  proved  that  there 
ioas  cause  to  protest,  and  necessity  to  separate.- 
I  showed  that  a  Reformation  had  been  for  a  long 
time  needed  deplorably  in  faith  and  morals:  the 
latter  was  acknowledged  by  all  :  the  Council  of 
Pisa  decreed  the  former;  and  the  necessity  of 
the  Reformation  became  an  article  of  faith  .-  that  I 
a  false  canon  of  truth,  and  a  false  Rule  of  faith  and 
practice  were  forced  upon  our  Fathers:   that  the 


did  it;  for  this  is  the  only  mention  of  it  in  all  the  Ua^  was  a  spiritual   tyrant  and  usurper  of"  Jesus 
Gospels;  and  James  did   not  and  could  not  insti-  jChrist's  place  and -authority  :   that  the  doctrines 


tute  it  in  his  epistle;  for  it  was  not  competent  to 
an  Apostle  to  do  such  a  thing.  So  it  appears  that 
there  is,  on  your  interpretation,  no  such  sacrament. 
Again;  the  Council  of  Trent  says,  (Sess.  10.  chap. 
I.)  '  this  sacred  unction  was  first  intimated  by 
Mark  vi.  13,'  but  yon  say  this  was  not  extreme 


f  grace  were  universally  corrupted,  and  that  all 
he  members  of  the  church  were  required  to  be- 
ieve  these  errors,  and  all  her  ministers  to  preach 
hem  ;  that  they  were  required  to  practice  gross 
dolatry  in  the  worship  of  saints,  images,  relics, 
and  even  bread,  or  be  cut  off  from  the  church  :  that 


unction  ;  wherefore  you  contradict  the  Council  of  f  force  was  applied  by  the  inquisition,  by  crusades, 
Trent.  Finally  there  is  a  dilemma  here  from  |by  censors  of  the  press  to  compel  uniformity,  im- 
which  it  is  impossible  to  escape;  for  if  this  sacra-  Fplicit  faith,  and  unqualified  submission;  that  all 
men  was  instituted  Mark  vi.  13.  (as  it  was,  if  j  who  disbelieved  were  in  danger  of  the  confisca- 
ever)  then  the  Apostles  administered  a  sacrament  ijtion  of  their  goods,  excommunication,  interdicts, 
not  being  Priests;  but  the  Council  of  Trent  says  jand  the  stake;  that  there  was  no  liberty  of  con- 
fess. 14.  chap.  3.)  Bishops,  or  Priests  properly  Iscience;  that  even  the  word  of  God  was  torn  from 
ordained  by  them,  are  the  proper  Ministers  of  thelthe  people  by  law ;  and  that  all  the  errors  which  I 
sacrament  of  extreme  unction;'  and  yet  they  say  |iave  exposed   in  these  letters    were 


(Sess.  22.  chap.  3.)  '  that  the  Apostles  were"  first 
made  Priests  at  the  last  supper.'  Here  then,  while 
you  contradict  the  Council  on  one  point,  it  contra- 
dicts itself  on  another;  and  which  ever  way  you 
take  it,  the  Council  has  erred. 

IV.  Having  now  seen  how  you  answer  some  of 
my  questions,  and  wholly  pass  by  others,  I  pro- 
ceed to  reply  to  the  fourth  and  fifth  in  yonr  series; 
they  are  in  substance  this:  Did  the  Reformers 
receive  any  new  ministerial  authority  after  the 
withdrawal  of  that  which  they  had  received  from 
the  church;  and  if  not,  had  they  any  divine  right 
to  exercise  the  Christian  ministry  ?  The  proper] 
answer  to  these  questions  turns  on  the  settlement; 
of  a  previous  question,  viz:  'had  the  church  of' 
Rome  the  right  or  power  in  this  case  to  withdraw 
their  ministerial  authority?'  When  AthanasiusJ 
was  deposed,  'unfrocked,'  as  you  say,  by  the! 
Arian  bishops,  bad  he  a  right  to  preach  or  not?! 
If  he  had  not,  then  the  Arian  majority  in  the 
church  did  right  in  deposing  him  for  holding  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  Rut  you  will  hardly  de- 
fend them.  It  was  an  unlawful  stretch  of  pow- 
er, and  he  was  not  actually  deposed,  nor  his  minis- 
terial power  really  recalled.  Then  the  principle 
is  plain,"  that  when  a  church  deposes  ministers  of 
Christ 'fur  refusing  !o  preach  ruinous  errors,  and  fori 
refusing  to  submit  to  oppressive  usurpations,  thbde-4 
posing  act  is  null,  and  mid. 

If  a  minister  of  Christ  be  deposed,  for  refusing  t\ 
sin,  the  deposition  is  nullandvoid.  If  thisbe  not  true] 
then  you  hold  that  a  man  must  sin,  knowing  it  id 
be  sin  ;  and  that  Christ  has  given  the  church  lh<| 
right  and  power  to  wake  a  man  sin,  or  to  depos<| 
him  if  he  will  not.     Tt  is  therefore  strictly  aques-£ 


forced  upon 
Ihe  people  and  the  preachers.  Now,  if  these  things 
Kvere  so,  it  was  their  right,  their  duty  toprotesf,-  and 
When  forced  on  them,  to  separate.  Indeed,  they  had 
no  choice  ;  the  church  of  Rome  would  not  let  them 
stay  in  her  communion.  Look  at  J.  Huss,  Jerome 
of  Prague,  Luther,  &c.  &c.  She  burnt  the  two 
former  ;  she  sought  to  burn  Luther,  and  failing  to 
do  that,  excommunicated  him  ;  that  is,  forced  him 
from  her.  Then  I  say,  it  was  the  right,  the 
\duty,  the  necessity  of  the  case  to  go  out  of  her. 
Rut  if  this  he  once  admitted  (and  I  have  fully 
proved  it)  then  they  carried  their  ministerial  au- 
thority with  them  ;  and  you  might  as  well  say 
that  the  Apostles  had  no  right  to  preach  after  the 
Sanhedrim  silenced  them,  nor  Athanasius  after  the 
Arian  majority  in  the  Council  deposed  him,  as  to 
say  that  the  church  of  Rome,  under  such  circum- 
stances, could  reca!  the  ministerial  authority  of 
the  Reformers.  But  still  farther;  by  her  errors, 
and  tyranny,  and  vile  immoralities,  the  church  of 
JRome  herself  became  heretical,  and  was  guilty 
>n  ,-  she  it  was  who  divided   Christ's  btfdy, 


\ 


of 

[and  left  the  true  ehurch,  as  the  Arians  did  in  the 
days  of  Athanasius.  The  true  church  depends 
not  on  numbers  (once  it  was  all  assembled  in  an 
upper  chamber  in  Jerusalem,)  but  on  the  holding 
and  preaching  of  God's  truth,  and  administering 
Christ's  sacraments  as  he  commanded.  Besides^ 
millions  of  God's  people,  and  hundreds  of  his  min- 
isters united  with  the  Reformers,  and  left  the  cor- 
rupt church  of  Rome.  If  these  things  be  so,  and  I 
have  proved  them,  then  the  deposing  of  the  Re- 
formers was  an  empty  and  a  wicked  act ,-  and  there- 
fore they  claimed,  as  they  needed  no  new  autho- 
thority  ;  they  had  all  they   required  or  ever   had. 


291 


2.  On  your  own  principles,  the  act  of  ordination  j 
leaves  lan  indelible  character  J  The  Council  of 
Trent,  session  23.  canon  4.  decreed  '  that  a  char- 
acter is  impressed  (by  ordination)  and  that  he 
who  was  once  a  priest  can  never  become  a  lay- 
man again.'  Hence*  you  hold  that  the  acts  of  a 
person  ordained,  though  a  heretic,  are  valid;  though 
cut  off,  deposed,  and  even  an  atheist,  he  is  still 
indelibly  a  minister  of  Jesus,  and  his  acts  are  still 
valid,  and  he  begets  a  like  character  to  his  own 
on  the  ordained  person,  and  though  both  parties 
sin  in  the  act,  yet  the  act  is  valid.  If  so,  the 
Reformers  did  not  lose  their  indeliable  character 
and  they  had  power  to  communicate  the  same  to 
others.  Therefore,  what  you  gave  them  you  could 
not  take  away,  on  your  own  principles. 

3.  There  is  not  a  church  on  the  globe  in  which 
the  ordination  of  ministers  is  so  defective  as  the 
church  of  Rome.  1.  You  call  orders  a  '  sacra* 
ment.1  But  there  is  nothing  in  its  nature  like  a 
sacrament ;  nor  one  word  in  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  rest  it  on.  I  defy  you  to  bring  one  text,  or 
one  fact  to  prove  it.  2.  Priests  in  your  church  are 
ordained  to  offer  up  Jesu  s*Christ  in  the  mass,  and 
you  say  '  it  is  the  chief  business  of  a  Priest  to  offer 
sacrifice.''  Yet  1  have  proved,  in  my  last  letter, 
and  you  have  not  disputed  one  of  the  points,  that 
this  sacrifice  is  blasphemous,  anti-Christian,  and 
unfounded.  Your  chief  business,  therefore,  for 
which  you  are  are  ordained,  does  not  exist.  You 
might  just  as  well,  for  all  the  ends  of  ordination,  or- 
dain a  man  to  search  for  the  philosopher's  stone, 
or  to  find  out  perpetual  motion.  The  business  of 
Aaron's  priesthood  was  to  offer  up  sacrifices,  but  of 
ChrisTs  ministers  to  '  preach  the  word,'  to  publish 
salvation,  to  administer  his  true  sacraments;  to 
serve,  (not  lord  it  over,)  but  serve  the  church,  and 
seek  to  save  the  world.  3.  The  manner  of  ordina- 
tion in  your  church  is  grossly  heathenish,  and  whol- 
ly unlike  the  simple  '  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery,'  (1  Tim.  iv.  14.)  practised  in  primi- 
tive days.  A  more  unmeaning  mummery  can 
hardly  be  invented  or  conceived. 

4.  And  then  you  have  seven  orders  of  minis- 
ters. Now  there  is  not  one  word  for  all  these  in 
the  Bible;  and  you  know  it  full  well. 

5.  The  ordination  of  your  church  is  wrapped 
in  utter  uncertainty. 

I  refer,  in  proof  of  this,  to  my  discussion  in 
this  Letter  on  '  intention.'  I  refer  again  to  my 
Letter,  No.  XXVIII.  where  it  is  shown  that  the 
Papal  succession  cannot  he  made  out;  that  is, 
never  existed  :  and  that  you  do  not,  to  this  day, 
know,  nor  can  you  know,  a  false  from  a  true 
Pope.  Yet  your  ordination  hangs  on  his  button, 
and  distils  through  his  polluted  hands. 

Your  only  reply  to  this  was — that  try  in  vain 
to  break  the  golden  chain  which  connects  the 
chair  of  St.  Peter  with  the  present  Pope  !  Fi- 
nally, see  what  your  own  Baronius  (on  the  famous 
page  7t*>G  of  10th  vol.)  makes  Segebert  say  from 
Auxilius.  'Auxilius  writes  a  dialogue  under  the 
persons  of  Infensor  and  Defensor,  confirmed  by 
divine  and  canonical  examples,  against  the  intes- 
tine discord  of  the  church  of  Rome,  forsooth  con- 
cerning the  ordinations,  and  ex-ordinations,  and 


super-ordination,  of  the  Popes  ;  and  of  the  ex- 
and  super-ordination  of  those  ordained  by  them.' 
In  such  giving,  recalling,  and  confounding  ordi- 
nations by  false  Popes  and  true,  who  could  be 
certain  of  his  scrip  or  staff"?  Who  could  tell 
whether  the  Pope  who  authorised  his  ordination, 
or  the  Pope  who  recalled  it,  was  the  true  Pope? 
Yet  in  divers  cases  after  one  Pope  was  deposed, 
or  died,  his  ghostly  successor  nullified  all  his 
acts  of  ordinations;  and,  in  return,  on  his  re- 
moval, his  acts  of  ordination  were  thus  treated. 
And  for  fifty  years  there  were  two  reigning  Popes, 
one  at  Avignon  and  one  at  Rome,  who  excom- 
municated and  anathematized,  and  deposed  each 
other,  and  all  their  respective  followers  ;  and  of 
whom  we  can  say  this  good  thing  at  least,  that 
they  always  spoke  truth  when  they  denounced  each 
other.  But  under  such  circumstances,  who  can 
unravel  the  riddle  of  this  mangled  subject;  or 
trace  his  ordination  with  any  certainty  through 
this  Cretan  labyrinth  1 

Before,  therefore,  you  question  our  authority  to 
preach,  look  better  to  your  own  ;  and  let  your 
holy  lives,  your  faithful  preaching,  your  success 
in  saving  souls,  be  added  as  living  seals  to  your 
ministerial  authority.  If  you  can  make  your  own 
out,  we  have  all  that  you  ever  had.  But  since 
the  Reformation,  it  is  a  grave,  and,  to  say  the 
least,  a  debateable  question,  whether  yours  is  a 
church  of  God  at  all.  God  said  to  his  people  at 
that  day,  '  come  out  of  her  ,•'  and  they  came. 
Jerusalem  had  her  Pella  ;  the  church  of  Rome, 
had  the  Reformation.  Let  God's  people  come 
out  of  her.  He  who  returns  to  her  'loves  dark- 
ness rather  than  light.' 

V.  Your  exceptions  to  my  twofold  answers  to 
your  first,  second,  and  third  questions,  need 
scarcely  any  additional  notice.  The  inquiry,  as 
to  the  existence  of  Protestantism  before  Luther, 
and  where,  and  when,  (besides  my  previous  re- 
plies) may  thus  be  finally  settled.  You  admit 
that  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  Apostles,  and 
recorded  in  the  Bible,  are  true  Christianity — so 
do  I.  We  both  also  allow  that  these  doctrines 
have  been,  according  to  Christ's  promise  to  his 
church,  held  and  taught  by  the  true  church  ever 
since.  Then  if  your  present  doctrines  contradict 
the  Bible,  at  every  step,  and  if  ours  harmonize 
with  it,  it  follows,  that  we  are  the  true  church, 
and  that  our  doctrines  have  been  taught  and  held 
in  every  age.  But  I  have  proved  this  at  large, 
as  to  both  faith,  and  morals,  and  worship;  I  have 
showed  the  Pope  to  be  a  usurper;  that  '  indul- 
gences were  a  bundle  of  licenses  to  commit  sin,' 
and  that  heaven  is  set  up  for  sale  by  them  ;  I 
have  exposed  the  anti-christian  and  idolatrous 
character  of  Transubstantiation.  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Mass,  and  adoration  of  the  Host ; — I  have  dis- 
proved purgatory,  extreme  unction,  your  false 
doctrine  of  human  merits,  and  priestly  absolu- 
tion :  I  have  proved,  that  sheer  idolatry,  immo- 
ralities the  most  gross,  persecution,  the  des- 
truction of  personal,  religious,  and  civil  liberty, 
crusades,  inquisitions,  &c,  involving  the  murder 
of  some  50,000,000  of  men,  women  and  children, 
were  not  only  tolerated,  but  made  lawful  and  ne- 


292 


Cessary  in  your  church  ;  in  a  word,  I  have  show- 
ed, that  your  church  has  corrupted  the  very  Bible 
itself,  by  spurious  books,    false  interpretations, 
and  unfounded  traditions,  and  even  dared  to  say 
that  God's  word  would,  and   did  injure  his  crea- 
tures, and   prohibited  it   to    the   people.     In  con- 
trast with  all   this,  I   have  presented  the  Protes- 
tant doctrines  and   morals,  and  worship,  as   har- 
monizing with    the   word   of  God.     Now  if  this 
has  indeed  been  made  out  (as  I  think  it  has)  then 
it  follows,  that  the  Protestant  religion  was  taught 
by  the  Apostles,  and    of  course  has  been  held  by 
the  true  church  in  every  age  ;   whereas  your  doc- 
trines were  not  taught  by  the  Apostles;  are  nov- 
elties and  corruptions  ;  and  the  true  church  never 
did,  does  not,  and  cannot  hold  them.     My  argu- 
ments, for  many  letters,  have  borne  steadily  on 
the  cumulative  proof  of  this  position;  and,  if  well 
founded,  the  conclusien  is  irresistible.    As  to  Pro- 
testant unity,  I  stated  that  the  various  denomina- 
tions mentioned  in  my  last  letter,  were  more  united 
with  each  other,  than  the  Papal  church  in  suces- 
cessive  ages.     I  stated  also,  that  the  twelve  Con- 
fessions  of  Faith  issued   at  the   Reformation  all 
presented    esssential    and  wonderful  unity.     The 
fact  that   they  were  many  and  yet  agreed,  without 
trick  or  force,  is  far  better  proof  of  honest  and 
real   unity,  than  the  forced  uniformity  of  all  your 
people   in  the   one  creed ;    and    as   these   twelve 
creeds  agree  in    the  truth,    and   as   your   people 
agree  in  error,   so  their  unity   is  Christian  unity, 
but  yours,  like  that  of  Jews  or  Mohammedans,  if 
ever  so  great,   being  unity  in  error,  is   the  more 
dangerous.     Again,  if  any  one  of  the  many  Protes- 
tant communions  be  a  true  church,  my  argument 
against  you  is  still  sound  and  good;  and  those  in 
error  may  be  reformed.     But  if  you  are  wrong,  it 
is  not  only  a  universal  heresy,  but  a  desperate  one. 
For,  as  you  claim  to  be  infallible,  so  you  are  inca- 
pable of  Reformation,  and  the  case  is  without  re- 
medy.    The  Bible    foreshows   in   lines   clear   as 
light,  that  your  church  must  be  destroyed,  for  she 
rejects  reform,  and   is  therefore  incurable.     The 
Jews  themselves  shall  be  recovered,  '  and  grafted 
in  again;'   but  the  church  of  Rome    '  shall  be  cut 
off.'      Who  can  read  the  11th  chapter  of  Romans, 
or  the  2d  chap,  of  2  Thess.  or  the  book  of  Revela- 
tions, and  doubt  that  the  church  of  Rome  is  to  be 
cast  off'?     It  is  a  curious  fact,  that  in  Malta,  and 
even  Rome  itselt,  it  is  a  common  opinion  (not  an 
article  of  faith)  that  the  present  will    be  the  last 
Pope.     Prophecy  travails  in   the  speedy  dissolu- 
tion of  the  Papal  dominion. 

VI.  I  promised  in  my  last  letter  to  say  something  of 
the  sects  and  variations  of  your  church.  These  are 
subjects  replete  with  matter,  and  require  volumes  for 
their  elucidation.  Since  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  es- 
pecially since  the  Reformation  which  tore  the  jewel 
from  the  Pope's  crown,  and  delivered  better  than  half 
of  Europe  from  his  dominion,  and  poured  a  flood  of 
light  on  the  world,  necessity  and  growing  weakness 
have  compelled  more  union  ;  and  the  progress  of  the 
Reformation  has  shed  its  twilight  even  on  the  Vatican. 
Thus,  in  self-defence  some  excesses  have  been  reform- 
ed, and  more  union  engendered.  But  look  at  the 
church  before  the  Reformation;  yea,  look  at  her  par- 
tics  and  opinions  even  now.     It  is  not  agreed  to  this 


day,  which  are  the  general  councils,  there  are  parties 
on  this  subject;  nor  whether  the  Pope  be  infallible; 
nor  where  infallibility  is  lodged;  nor  whether  the  Pope 
has  power  over  both  swords,  to  depo-e  princes,  &c.  &,c; 
nor  whether  all  the  human  race  were  born  in  original 
sin;  nor  in  what  the  true  consecrating  act  in  Transub- 
stantiation  consists  ;  nor  in  what  the  matter  and  essence 
of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  consists;  nor  what  the  in- 
fallible Traditions  are ;  nor  whether  the  Pope  be  above 
a  Council,  or  a  Council  above  the  Pope ;  all  these  have 
their  parties  in  trie  church  of  Rome  at  this  day.     It  is 
true,  (as  at  the  council  of  Trent,)  where  they  cannot 
agree,  they  call   them  opinions  ;  and  where  they  can, 
doctrines.     But  this  is  absurd.     On  this  plan,  the  Pro- 
testant communions,  named  in  my  last  Letter,  are  now 
more  united,  than  the  present  church  of  Rome.     But 
again,  if  we  ascend  into  earlier  days  we  shall  find  old 
Rome  and  new,  far,  far  at  odds.-    The  Council  of  Nice, 
A.  D.  325,  put  the  Pope  on  a  level  with  the  other  lead- 
ing Bishops;  and  Pope  Gregory  called  the  title  of  Uni- 
versal Bishop,  (not  as  Mr.  Hughes  says,  in  the  Bishop  of 
Constantinople's,  but  in  any  hands,)  the  mark  of  anti- 
christ.    Now,  the  Pope  is  universal  monarch,  and  head 
of  all   Bishops.      Is  not  this  a  vast  variation  ?     The 
Council  of  Laodicca  decreed,  "we  ought  not  to  leave  the 
church  of  God,  and  go  to  invoke  angels,  (Angeli.)    But 
as  this  directly  forbids  what  the  Council  of  Trent  di- 
rectly commands;  so  it  has  been  changed  to  read,  Anguli- 
corners;  i.  e.  '■worship  corners.''     By  this,  and  other  for- 
geries and  erasures,  H.  Boxhorn,  Professor  of  Divinity, 
at  Loraine,  had  his  eyes  opened,  and  left  the  church  of 
Rome   forever.      (See  his  3d   Book,  de   Euch.)      The 
church  of  Rome  once  gave  the  cup  to  the  laity  in  the 
communion,  now  she   takes   it   away;    once  she  and 
all  the  church  prayed  in  the  known  tongue  of  the  peo- 
ple, and   Paul  expressly  forbids  an  unknown   tongue, 
unless  accompanied  by  an  interpreter.  (See  1  Cor.xiv.) 
Once  too,  the  Bible  in  the  church  of  Rome  was  in  the 
known  tongue  of  the  people,  and  open  to  all.     Now  the 
church-prayers   and  Bible,  are  in  the  unknown  tongrue, 
and  the  church  curses  those  who  condemn  it.     There 
have  been  four  different  systems  of  infallibility,  at  dif- 
ferent times  and  places  :    1.  That  of  the  Pope  ;  2,  that 
of  the  Council;  3,  the  Pope  and  Council ;  4,  that  the 
universal  church  was  the  scat  of  infallibility.     There 
have  been  also  three  systems  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
Pope's  supremacy:    1,  a  Presidency  ;  2,    a  Monarch  ; 
3,  a  God  on  earth.     There  have  been  three  systems  of 
image  worship  :  1,  Their  use  as  a  help  to  devotion  ;  2, 
the  lower    worship  of   them:   3,    the    same    worship 
of  them    as    of  the  originals    represented  by    them. 
And  three  periods  as  to  Priests'  marriage:  1,  It  was 
allowed;  2,  forbidden  under  Gregory  VII.;  3,  prefer- 
ence of  fornication  to  it,  and  permission  to  keep  concu- 
bines.    Also  there  are  now  three  parties  as  to  the  doc- 
trine of  celibacy:   1.  That  it  is  a  divine  interdict;  2. 
only  a  human  institution,  though  binding  and  good  ;  3. 
(as  now  in  France,)  that  celibacy  is  useless  and  inju- 
rious.    Once  the  church  of  Rome  gave  the  Eucharist 
to  infants  as  necessary  to  their  salvation  ;  now  she  for- 
bids it.    Once  she  held  the  doctrine  of  the  millennium  ; 
afterwards  she  stoutly  rejected  it.     In  these  two  last 
she  not  only  varied,  but  on  one  side  or  other  must  have 
erred.     Now  is  not  this  the  very  essence  of  variation, 
and    party   dissensions  in   the  bosom    of  the  Roman 
church  1       She  boasts  of  never  changing,  and  Jerome 
says  (Praef.  to  Evang.)  '  What    changes  is  not  true  ; 
verum  non  esse  quod  variat.    Was  there  ever  such  ver- 
satility and  variation  ?     Yet  this  is  the  unchangeable 
church,    reigning  in  the  eternal  city.      Finally,  once 
confession  of  sin  was  public  in  the  church  of  Rome,  and 


293 


the  penitent  was  referred  for  pardon  to  God.  Now  the 
priest  pardons,  and  to  him  confession  is  made  in  pri- 
vate. He  is  now  like  a  'common  sewer,  the  depository 
ot  all  the  sins  of  all  his  people.  What  an  effect  must 
it  produce  on  the  priest's  soul,  and  what  a  power  does 
it  give  him  over  other  men,  and  then  he  must  keep 
every  villain's  secret,  and  pardon  the  villain  confessing. 
The  questions  asked  at  confession,  are  enough  to  ruin 
a  chaste  mind.  I  wish  you  would  publish  them.  I 
have  a  list  of  them  in  Spanish  ;  but  I  dare  not  render 
them  into  English.  Even  'The  Christian's  Guide' 
published  by  Mr.  Cummiskey,  Philadelphia,  and  in 
use  here,  under  the  Bishop's  approval,  contains  in  its 
1  Table  of  sins,'  such  matter,  as  no  man  should,  on  any 
account  permit  his  child  to  sec,  and  which  no  lady 
ought  to  read,  much  less  use  in  confession.  Yet  the 
penitent  is  directed  to  consult  this  very  '  table  of  sins,' 
in  preparation  for  confession  ;  and  at  it  to  confess  all 
her  sins.     I  forbear  to  publish  this  horrible  catalogue. 

VII.  I  had  desired  to  say  something  of  the  effects 
of  the  reformation,  in  proof  of  its  divine  origin  and 
intrinsic  excellence.  Who  ever  would  be  truly  inform- 
ed on  this  subjec!,  should  read  "  Villers  on  the  Refor- 
mation," lately  rcpiinted  in  this  city  by  Messrs.  Key 
&  Biddlc,  in  the  Christian  Library.  We  may  read  the 
influence  of  the  Reformation  in  the  history  of  Spain 
contrasted  with  Holland,  Italy  with  England,  Portugal 
with  Scotland,  or  Mexico  and  the  South  American 
States  with  our  own  happy  country.  Heie  in  broad  extent 
and  for  successive  generations,  the  two  systems  have 
been  exhibited  in  their  practical  effects.  The  first 
named  state  in  each  of  the  above  contrasts,  is  Papal,  the 
last  Protestant.  And  now,  where  is  most  freedom, 
most  happiness,  most  moral  dignity,  most  science,  most 
national  greatness?  We  are  indebted  to  the  Reforma- 
tion under  God,  for  the  rights  of  conscience,  for  civil 
liberty,  for  the  revival  of  letters  in  chief  part,  and  fur 
the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  for  the  virtue  and  piety  of 
the  people,  and  the  eternal  salvation  of  innumerable 
souls.  The  love  of  power  is  the  very  genius  of  the 
papacy,  and  it  rises  on  the  ruins  of  holiness,  light  and 
liberty.  In  our  country  as  elsewhere,  the  liberties  of 
the  people  must  expire  with  the  general  prevalence  of 
Popery.  But  it  is  impossible  it  should  prevail  if  Pro- 
testants are  only  true  to  their  master,  and  to  their  prin- 
ciples. We  glory  in  the  principles  of  universal  tolera- 
tion. Truth  wants  no  help  but  its  own  power,  directed 
by  the  hand  of  its  author  It  must  finally  triumph;  it 
will  at  last  prevail.  Magna  est  Veritas,  and  prsevale- 
bit. 

In  my  imperfect  efforts  to  assert  its  evidences,  and 
to  vindicate  its  sacred  doctrines,  I  have  at  every  step 
felt  my  own  unfitness  for  so  great  a  work ;  and  should 
never  have  ventured  to  assume  such  a  task,  had  it  not 
been  forced  upon  me.  During  the  progress  of  this  dis- 
cussion, I  have  been  absent  from  home  half  the  time ; 
and  during  the  whole,  engaged  in  an  arduous  and  pcr- 
'plcxing  agency.  I  say  this  not  for  my  own,  but  the 
cause's  sake.  But  I  have  done  what  I  could.  As  the 
second  limit  set  to  the  time  for  continuing  the  contro- 
versy has  now  been  reached,  the  future  renewal,  or  final 
close  of  the  discussion,  will  be  referred  to  the  decision 
of  my  Rev'd  opponent. 

John  Breckinridge. 


P.  S.  I  have  but  a  few  words  to  say  in  answer 
to  your  Postscript.  It  will  be  perceived  that  the 
first  five  assertions  are  admitted  to  be  correctly 


quoted  from  Baronius,  as  you  do  not  give  us  a 
word  to  the  contrary.  That  this  silence  arises  from 
inability,  rather  than  want  of  will,  to  prove  their 
incorrectness,  is  too  evident  to  those  who  observe 
how  eagerly  you  catch  at  a  straw  in  endeavouring 
to  disprove  the  sixth.  It  avails  you  nothing  to 
object,  that  the  quotation  is  given  as  a  continuous 
passage,  and  therefore  '  unfair,'  when  our  readers 
know,  and  you  know,  that  I  referred  for  it  to  two 
folio  pages,  705,  7(i6.  The  only  question  is,  Is 
every  fact  contained  in  this  passage  proved  to 
have  been  stated  by  Baronius'?  For  an  answer 
to  this  question,  I  am  willing  to  appeal  to  any 
man,  who  has  a  competent  knowledge  of  the  ori- 
ginal, and  whose  judgment  is  not  perverted  by 
sectarian  influence.  Let  any  such  man  read  the 
proofs  I  gave  in  the  Postscript,  to  my  last  letter, 
compare  them  with  the  context  in  the  original, 
and  then  say  whether  the  facts  I  have  stated  on 
the  authority  of  Baronius  are  not  fully  made  out 
by  reference  to  the  pages  quoted.  Whether  it 
was,  or  was  not,  the  opinion  ofBaronius,  that  'God 
had  forgotten  the  (Roman  Catholic)  church'  is  a 
matter  of  very  little  importance,  while  the  facts 
which  he  states,  clearly  prove  that  such  was  thef 
case,  as  I  have  shown  in  my  last ;  and  the  object 
of  your  call,  as  well  as  the  point  of  my  proof,  was 
the  depravity  of  the  Popes.  On  this  you  said 
you  would  expose  me.  It  is  rather  amusing  to 
see,  to  what  a  pitiful  shift  you  are  driven,  to 
disprove  the  sixth  assertion  quoted  from  Ba- 
ronius, '  that  the  church  was  governed  by  strum- 
pets.' Have  you  forgotten  that  you  stated  in 
your  '  Notes'1  left  at  the  Athenaeum,  that  Alber- 
tus  '  could  expel  lawful  Popes,  and  put  in  usur- 
pers, just  as  his  mistress  directed?''  Wa3  not  the 
church  then  governed  by  a  strumpet  1  But  while 
ringing  your  changes  on  the  word  arbitrio,  did  you 
forget,  or  think  your  readers  would  forget,  that  I 
quoted  from  Baronius,  such  unequivocal  expres- 
sions as  '  cam  Bomce  dominarentur-* .. /were/Wees' 
when  strumpets  governed  Borne — '  cum  Tlieodora-- 
scortum  monarchi am- "'obtineret  in  urbe,1  when 
Theodora  a  strumpet  held  supreme  control  in  the 
city — HnvaluitmeretricumiMYtotLlVVLf  the  sovereign- 
ty of  strumpets  prevailed/  Will  you  please  to 
construe  these  expressions  word  for  word,  as  you 
have  meretricum  arbitrio  infamari  ? 

But  now  I  come  to  the  very  essence  of  your 
Postscript.  You  tell  your  readers  that  this  quo- 
tation was  made  by  me  '  under  the  threat  of 
exposure'. fJ  and  intimate  that  it  would  have  been 
much  more  'unfair,'  if  it  had  not  been  made  un- 
der such  awful  circumstances  !  '  Risum  tencalis, 
amici .?'  I  fear  I  shall  be  set  down  as  one  .under 
the  guilt  of  mortal  sin,  and  destitute  of  all  grace; 
but  truth  compels  me  to  confess,  that  from  the 
beginning  of  this  controversy,  to  the  present  time, 
I  have  not  for  a  moment  had  the  fear  of  the  Rev. 
John  Hughes,  nor  of  his  '  Lord  God  the  Pope,'  be- 
fore my  eyes  !  No,  Sir,  I  thank  my  God,  that 
the  time  is  not  yet  come,  and  it  is  my  grand  ob- 
ject in  this  controversy  to  keep  that  day  far  off, 
when  the  'threat'  of  a  Roman  priest  can  make 
me  tremble  for  my  reputation,  my  liberty,  or  my 


294 


hopes  of  heaven.  Even  the  Bulls  of  your  mas- 
ter become  very  harmless  animals,  when  sent  to 
pasture  on  our  happy  soil.  Your  arrogant  and 
impotent  threats  only  show  what  you  would  do,  if 
you  could. 


kO,  tua  cornu 
Ni  foret  exsecto  frons,  quid  faceres  quum 
Sic  mutilus  minitaris?" — Hor. 

"  If  you  can  threaten  now,  what  would  you  do, 
Had  not  the  horn  been  rooted  out,  that  grew 
Full  in  thy  front?"  J.  B. 


CONTROVERSY N°.   35. 


Is  the  Protestant  Religion  the  Religion  of  Christ? 


Philadelphia,  October  3d,  1833. 

To  the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge. 

Rev.  Sir, — By  a  note  received  from  the 
Editor  of  the  Presbyterian,  I  am  informed 
that  your  letter  closed  the  controversy,  and 
this  communication  is  admitted  by  the  cour- 
tesy of  the  editor,  to  remove  the  "  semblance 
of  partiality."  Of  course,  I  am  bound  to  ac- 
knowledge this  courtesy,  and  I  shall  avail 
myself  of  it,  simply  for  the  purpose  of  cor- 
recting the  erroneous  statements  of  your  last 
letter. 

1.  You  charge  me  as  follows — "You  as- 
serted that  the  Bible  was  not  a  sufficient  rule 
of  faith,  though  God  revealed  it  for  that  very 
end:  next  you  contended  that  it  had  no  fix- 
ed meaning  without1  an  authoritative  inter- 
pretation: then,  you  conceded  that  if  left  to 
itself  it  did  not  teach  the  doctrines  of  Pa- 
pacy; and  finally,  you  almost  abandon  its 
use  and  retreat  to  the  forlorn  hope  of  the  Fa- 
thers." 

Every  sentence  in  this  statement  is  a  mis- 
representation. In  the  first  place,  I  never 
said  that  God  had  appointed  the  Bible  for  the 
"  very  end"  that  it  might  be  the  sufficient  or 
only  rule  of  faith.  On  the  contrary,  the  er- 
rors and  opposite  doctrines  which  Protestants 
deduce  from  it,  are  the  proof  that  God  did  not 
appoint  it  exclusively  for  this  end.  If  he  had, 
it  would  be  understood  in  the  same  sense  by 
all — since  God  cannot  be  the  author  of  those 
contradictory  doctrines  which  Protestants  pro- 
fess to  find  in  the  Bible. 

2.  1  never  said  that  the  Bible  "  has  no  fix- 
ed meaning  without  an  authoritative  inter- 
pretation." But  I  said,  and  argued  that  with- 
out an  authoritative  interpretation  men  can- 
not be  assured  of  what  that  u  fixed  meaning" 
is.  Because,  as'we  see  among  Protestants, 
Unitarians,  Universalists,  &c.  &c.  have  as 
good  a  right  to  charge  their  errors  to  the  Bible 


as  the  Presbyterians  themselves.  Every  one 
has  the  right"  to  unfix  the  true  meaning  of  the 
Bible  and  substitute  his  own  favourite  folly, 
error,  opinion  and  fanaticism.  This  is  what 
I  said,  what  I  supported,  and  I  think,  esta- 
blished under  the  head  of  the  rule  of  faith. 

3.  I  never  said  that  the  Bible  does  not 
teach  the  Catholic  doctrines,  "if  left  to  it- 
self." Left  to  itself,  it  is  "  the  Bible  on  the 
shelf" — and  teaches  nothing.  Rightly  in- 
terpreted, it  teaches  Catholicity — Wrongly 
interpreted,  it  is  made  to  teach  a  thousand 
doctrines,  which  it  does  not  contain — Cal- 
vinism, Socinianism,  or  any  other  ism,  which 
the  interpreter,  for  the  time  being,  may  hap- 
pen to  prefer. 

4.  I  have  not  abandoned  the  use  of  the 
Scriptures  for  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers. 
On  all  the  questions  I  have  shown  that  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Fathers  spoke  the  same 
language — that  the  doctrines  of  Catholicity 
are  supported  by  the  testimony  of  both;  and 
that  the  opinions  of  Protestantism  are  not 
drawn  from  the  Bible,  but  from  the  Protest- 
ant mode  of  interpreting  the  Bible,  of  which 
the  Fathers  knew  nothing. 

Finally,  you  would  make  me  say  that  the 
Bible  is  a  "  nose  of  wax,"  a  kk  shoe  that  fits 
anv  foot,"  &c.  &c-  To  all  which  I  reply  that 
the  Protestant  rule  of  interpretation  makes 
of  the  Bible  just  whatever  the  interpreter 
thinks  proper.  This  you  did  not  deny,  but 
thaught  to  account  for,  by  saying  that  such 
interpretation  is  the  "abuse  of  the  Bible."  It 
is,  at  all  events,  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith, 
as  I  have  had  occasion  to  show  under  the  first 
cpiestion.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  stating  that, 
according  to  the  use  which  Protestants  make 
of  it,  the  Bible  maybe  called  a  musical  in- 
strument, on  which  every  sect  of  Protestants 
may  play  its  own  favourite  tune.  Which  sect 
is  right?  WTho  can  tell — when  all  have  the 
same  patent  of  interpretation,  and  each  claims 


£!>0 


the  Bible  in  opposition  to  all  the  rest?  Who 
is  to  decide  among  them? 

Having  thus  corrected  your  misstatement, 
and  misrepresentation  of  my  arguments, 
I  shall  follow  you  to  your  next  twofold  posi- 
tion— which  "you  think  the  community  are 
prepared  to  admit,"  viz:  1.  That  I  depend 
far  more  on  the  Fathers  than  on  the  Bible — 
and,  2.  That  their  "unanimous  consent,''  if 
it  has  a  being,  is  by  no  means  in  my  favour." 

To  the  first  of  these  positions  I  answer,  that 
the  Catholic  doctrine  is  established  on  the 
evidence  of  the  Scripture — the  attestation  of 
the  Fathers — the  testimony  of  all  the  ancient 
Liturgies,  of  the  heretics  themselves — the 
testimony  of  the  Syrian  Christians,  (whom  you 
once  called  "Protestants,") — of  the  Greek 
church — of  all  the  eastern  sects — in  fine,  of 
all  Christians,  from  the  preaching  of  Christ, 
to  the  days  of  Martin  Luther.  And,  this 
being  the  case,  it  follows,  that  either  "the 
Protestant  religion  is  not  the  religion  of 
Christ,"  or  else,  that  the  religion  of  Christ 
had  no  professors  in  the  world  before  the 
days  of  Martin  Luther.  All  this  accumulated 
testimony  shows  that  the  Catholic  doctrines 
were  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  down  to  the 
sixteenth  century;  and  that  no  Christians,  in 
the  whole  world,  understood  the  Bible  to  teach 
the  doctrines  which  Protestants  profess  to 
find  in  it. 

As  to  the  "  UNANIMOUS  CONSENT," 
it  is  undeniable-  You  find  that  all,  who  speak 
on  the  doctrines,  now  disputed  between  Ca- 
tholics and  Protestants,  are  clear  and  unequi- 
vocal in  their  testimony  in  our  favour.  They 
do  not  indeed,  always  speak  equally  clear. 
But  whilst  you  may  cite  passages  that  are  ob- 
scure, and  which,  by  themselves,  might  har- 
monize with  either  doctrine,  I  have  cited 
others,  which  settle  the  matter  of  their  belief 
— on  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eu- 
charist— the  sacrifice  of  the  Christian  Litur- 
gy, called  the  mass — the  invocation  of  saints 
— prayers  for  the  dead — purgatory — fasting 
—sign  of  the  cross — supremacy  of  St.  Peter, 
and  his  successors  in  the  visible  government 
of  Christ's  church  upon  earth — and,  in  short, 
of  all  the  doctrines  which  the  innovators  of 
the  sixteenth  century  have  rejected.  These 
testimonies,  clear  and  unequivocal,  may  be 
found  in  the  quotations  of  my  last  two  letters 
—taken  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers — 
both  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  after — 
for  the  first  five  hundred  years  of  the  Chris- 
tian church.  Neither  were  they  of  one  coun- 
try alone,  but  taken  indiscriminately  from 
Asia,  Europe  and  Africa.  You  seem  to  ad- 
mit that  there  is  no  way  of  evading  their  pow- 


erful testimony  on  these  matters,  except  by  a 
grammatical  quibble  on  the  word  ''unanimous 
consent."  Taking  it  for  granted  that  there 
are  exceptions,  you  infer  that  these  excep- 
tions destroy  the  force  of  the  rule.  The  great 
body  of  testimony  must  go  for  nothing,  pro- 
vided that,  by  the  distortion  of  his  language, 
you  can  make  it  appear  that  any  one  Father 
disagreed  from  the  rest.  In  fact  you  cannot 
find  such  disagreement.  Ail  have  not,  it  is 
true,  expressed  themselves  equally  plain — nor 
have  the  same  Fathers,  in  alt  the  parts  of  their 
works — but  when  so  great  a  number  of  them 
have  expressed  themselves  so  clearly  and  so 
strongly  in  attestation  of  the  Catholic  doc- 
trines, as  they  still  exist  in  the  church,  the 
"consent"  of  all  is  rendered  "unanimous," 
by  the  acquiescence  of  the  rest. 

We  do  not  profess  to  receive  our  belief 
from  the  Fathers,  as  if  they  were  the  au- 
thors of  it.  They  are  only  the  channel 
through  which  it  descended,  but  the  fountain. 
is  Jesus  Christ.  They  are  the  witnesses  of 
what  was  the  belief  of  the  church,  at  the 
times  when  they  lived  and  wrote.  And  as 
Protestants  pretend  that  the  primitive 
church  believed  as  they  do,  we  quote  the 
Fathers  to  show,  on  the  contrary,  that  the 
belief  of  the  church  was  then,  what  Catho- 
lics still  hold.  Thus,  Rev'd  Sir,  you  ap- 
pealed to  the  Fathers;  and  having  selected 
the  tribunal,  one  should  suppose  that  you 
would  consent  to  be  judged  by  it.  But  no. 
The  moment  I  furnish  their  verdict — you 
attack  their  authority,  and  say  that  their 
writings  have  been  "erased  and  Roman- 
ized!!" Then  why  did  you  appeal  to  them? 
But  the  Fathers  have  been  recognised  by 
the  University  of  Oxford — and  is  it  possi- 
ble, that  the  learned  body  of  Protestants 
who  presided  at  their  publication,  would 
palm  on  the  world  writings  which  have  been 
"erased  and  Romanized?"  Again,  how 
could  the  church  "  erase  and  Romanize" 
these  writings  in  the  hands  of  her  enemies? 
They  have  been  preserved  by  the  various 
sects  of  Heretics,  separated  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  church,  some  of  them,  since 
the  very  days  of  the  Fathers.  They  have 
been  preserved  by  the  Greek  Schismatics- 
would  they  suffer  their  copies  to  be  "  erased 
and  Romanized?"  Does  not  the  fact  of 
your  having  uttered  this  charge,  under  your 
present  circumstances  in  this  controversy, 
imply  the  consciousness,  that  the  Fathers 
are  against  you — whilst  the  charge  itself  is 
refuted  by  its  own  absurdity? 

Mr.  B.,  after  all  these  expedients  re- 
sorted to — for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  hia 


£97 


cause,  with  great  apparent  gravity  makes  a 
new  assertion,  and  tells  us  that««««"the 
higher  we  rise  in  antiquity,  the  more  de- 
cidedly Protestant  do  they  (the  Fathers)  be- 
come, until  the  last  traces  of  Romanism  dis- 
appear amidst  the  better  light  of  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers."  Does  Mr.  B.,  imagine 
that  the  quotations  of  my  last  letter,  taken 
from  the  writings  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers 
are  to  be  overturned  by  empty  declamation, 
and  mere  assertion,  without  the  least  proof? 
Does  he  suppose  that  those  proofs,  which  are 
undeniable,  are  already  forgotten  by  our 
readers?  In  reference  to  the  authorities 
quoted  by  Mm,  and  which  1  had  occasion  to 
expose,  he  assures  us  that  nothing  unfair, 
was  done  by  him,  "  to  Ms  knowledge."  He 
then,  no  doubt,  copied  from  others,  who 
wrote  for  Protestants  only,  and  whose  false 
or  garbled  quotations,  passed  unexposed, 
and  even  unsuspected.  It  was  on  this  ac- 
count, at  an  early  stage  of  the  controversy, 
I  advised,  him  to  beware  of  his  quotations; 
and  it  is  but  a  poor  plea  for  the  false  quota- 
tions which  he  has  since  put  on  record,  to 
say  now  that,  indeed,  it  was  not  done  "  to 
his  knowledge."  As  an  offset,  however, 
he  arraigns  me  in  connexion  with  the  au- 
thorities quoted  by  me  from  Tertullian, 
Wesley,  Luther,  and  Jewell,  Now  I  refer 
the  reader  to  the  particular  passages,  in 
which  I  quoted  from  these  writers,  and  he 
will  see  that  you,  Rev'd  Sir,  revive  a  charge, 
which  was  promptly  resented,  and  trium- 
phantly refuted  in  each  particular  instance. 
Such  charges  come  with  a  bad  grace  from 
you,  in  as  much  as  they  are  not  only  un- 
founded, but  have  been  already  refuted. 
Of  Tertullian's,  you  may  recollect  that  you 
misrepresented  the  object  for  wliich  it  ivas 
adduced  as  a  proof—  and  that  the  charge  of 
garbling  was  refuted  by  my  correcting  your 
misrepresentation  of  my  argument.  Of 
Wesley,  I  proved,  from  his  own  writings, 
all  I  had  asserted.  Of  Luther,  the  same. 
Of  Jewell,  I  spoke  on  the  strength  of  au- 
thorities wliich  you  did  not  dispute.  These 
being  thei"acts  of  the  case,  our  readers  will 
not  be  imposed  upon  by  your  gratuitous 
charge  against  me,  of  garbling,  mistransla- 
tions, perversions,  and  false  assertions  of 
authorities,  charges,  which  have  been  not 
only  preferred,  but  undeniably  established 

AGAINST  YOURSELF. 

Not  less  curious  is  the  manner  in  which 
you  allude  to  my  proofs  of  Christ's  real  pre- 
sence in  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist. 
You  had  pretended  that  the  Protestant  doc- 
trine could  be  found,  at  least  in  the  LITUR- 


GIES of  the  ancient  Heretics  of  the  East; 
as  if  men  could  not  err  from  the  unity  of 
Christ's  religion,  without  necessarily  falling 
into  the  Protestant  doctrines.  Now  I  have 
shown  the  belief  of  the  Catholic  church 
on  all  the  doctrines  that  appertain  to  the 
Liturgy,  viz,:  The  sacrifice  of  the  Eucha- 
rist— the  rkal  presence  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood,  after  the  consecration,  under  the 
appearance  of  bread  and  wine;  the  priest- 
iiood  of  the  new  law;  the  altar,  the  vic- 
tim, in  the  unbloody  manner — the.  invoca- 
tion of  saints; — the  sacrifice  and  prayer 
for  the  dead,  as  well  as  the  living.  Such  is 
the  testimony  of  these  neutral  documents, 
which  are  neither  Catholic  nor  Protestant, 
but  which,  being  preserved  by  the  enemies  of 
the  Catholic  church,  from  the  very  first  ages 
of  Christianity,  must  be  received  by  all  can- 
did men,  as  unimpeachable  vouchers  for  the 
primitive  belief  of  Christians,  on  these 
points.  For,  these  sects  would  not  borrow 
their  liturgy,  after  the  separation,  from  their 
enemies,  the  very  church  which  had  excom- 
municated them.  Consequently,  the  litur- 
gies and  the  doctrines  which  they  contain 
are  to  be  referred  to  a  date  anterior  to  the 
separation.  They  all  agree  with  the  Catho- 
lic church;  and  it  must  be  this  conviction, 
and  the  argument  which  it  furnishes,  that 
have  obliged  my  opponent,  after  having 
claimed  these  liturgies  for  the  Protestant 
side,  a  few  letters  since,  to  shrink  now  from 
their  withering  testimony  against  him,  and 
tell  the  public  that,  indeed,  "every  scholar 
knows  them  to  be  replete  with  forgeries  of 
the  Church  of  Rome"!!!  Why  then  did  he 
claim  them  ?  And  having  claimed  them, 
without  knowing  their  contents,  why  now 
does  he  make  a  bad  cause  worse,  by  charg- 
ing them  with  ''forgery?" 

He  then  turns  to  a  new  question  and  says 
they  were  not  written  by  the  authors  to 
whom  they  are  ascribed.  This  is  nothing  to 
the  purpose.  It  is  known  that  the  first 
liturgies  were  not,  for  a  long  time,  commit- 
ted to  ivriting  at  all.  And  the  name  of  St. 
Cyprian,  in  the  liturgy  ascribed  to  St.  Peter, 
is  no  proof  that  the  substance  of  it,  as  rela- 
tes to  the  Eueharistic  sacrifice,  had  not  been 
taught  by  St.  Peter.  The  Scriptures  furnish 
a  case  in  point.  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
is  ascribed  to  Moses,  yet  the  last  chapter 
contains  an  account  of  his  death  and  burial, 
which  shows  that  this  part  was  written  by 
some  other.  This  turning  away  from  the 
doctrine,  to  the  authorship  of  the  liturgies,  is 
in  keeping  with  all  the  rest.  But  the  im- 
plicit acknowledgment  of  all  the  documents 


298 


of  antiquity  being  adverse  to  Protestantism, 
is  easily  gathered  from  your  charges  of 
" forgery,"  "erasure  and  Romanizing,"  and 
the  interrogatory  with  which  the  whole  winds 
up,  "who  then  can  trust  your  testimonies?" 

After  having  established  the  Catholic  be- 
lief, bv  arguments  founded  on  the  testimony 
oftheHoly  Scripture;  by  the  very  incredu- 
lity of  the  Jews  at  Capharnaum  when  the 
doctrine  was  first  proposed;  by  the  plain, 
and  positive  words  of  the  Redeemer,  in  the 
institution  of  the  Sacrament;  by  the  testi- 
mony of  St.  Paul,  who  warned  the  Chris- 
tians against- the  sin  of  eating  or  drinking 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  unworthily; 
by  the  testimony  of  the  apostolic  Fathers, 
Ignatius  in  particular,  who  states  that  the 
Heretics  of  that  age  abstained  from  the  Eu- 
charist, because  they  would  not  acknowledge 
it  to  be  the  "flesh  of  christ  ;"  by  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers,  both  be- 
fore and  after  the  Council  of  Nice;  by  the 
very  testimony  of  the  enemies  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  the  Greek  schismatics  and  here- 
tics of  the  East  generally;  by  all  the  liturgies 
in  the  world,  before  the  days  of  Carlostadiu«, 
with  whom  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  mere 
bread  and  wine  began: — after  all  this,  to 
which  no  positive  testimony  has  been  oppos- 
ed, it  is  curious,  I  say,  to  perceive  the  tone  of 
nonchalance  with  which  you  introduce  "  my 
last  and  feeble  struggle  for  transubtantia- 
tion!"  Do  you  suppose,  Rev.  Sir,  that  this 
manner  of  affecting  to  see  no  strength  in 
evidences  which  you  cannot  deny,  and  argu- 
ments which  you  cannot  answer,  will  not  be 
duly  appreciated  by  the  intelligence  of  out- 
readers?  Do  you  suppose  that  such  a  mass  of 
testimony  is  to  be  outweighed,  in  the  public 
mind,  by  your  naked  assertion? 

You  say  that  it  is  1  who  profit  ';  by  in- 
sulated sentences"  from  the  Fathers,  and 
that  "  if  their  writings  could  be  presented  in 
unbroken  connexion,  the  argument  against 
me  would  appear  in  ten  fold  strength." 
Then,  Rev.  Sir,  it  was  your  business  to  give 
some  specimens  of  this  "  unbroken  connex- 
ion." But  let  us  test  the  truth  of  your  ipse 
dixit,  even  on  this.  St.  Chrysostom  is  one 
of  those,  whom  Protestants  are  pleased  to 
claim  as  friendly  to  their  opinions.  Allow 
me  then,  to  give  an  extract  from  a  sermon 
which  he  preached  at  Antioch  in  the  year 
386,  (Horn.  61.)  and  mark  well  its  doctrine. 

"It  is  necessary,  my  dear  brethren,  to 
learn  what  is  the  miracle,  wrought  in  our 
mysteries,  why  it  has  been  given  to  us,  and 
what  profit  we  ought  to  derive  from  it.  We 
are  all  but  one  body  the  members  of  his  flesh 


and  bones.  Let  us  who  are  initiated,  follow 
what  I  am  about  to  say.  In  order  then  that 
we  may  be  mixed  up  with  the  flesh  of  Jesus 
Christ,  not  only  by  love,  but  really  and 
truly,  he  has  given  the  food  that  effects  this 
prodigy,  being  desirous  thus  to  manifest  the 
love  he  bears  us.  For  this  purpose  he  has 
mixed  and  incorporated  himself  in  us,  in 
order  that  we  might  form  but  one  with  him, 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  members  form  but 
one  body,  being  all  united  to  the  same  head. 
In  tact  those  who  wish  to  love  tenderly, 
always  wish  to  be  but  one  with  the  object  of 

their  love Wherefore,  like  lions  which 

inhale  and  breathe  forth  flames,  let  us  leave 
this  table,  having  ourselves  become  formida- 
ble to  the  devil,  reflecting  on  our  head,  and 
the  love  he  has  so  wonderfully  and  manifest- 
ly shown  us.  Mothers  not  unfrequently  put 
out  their  children  to  be  nursed  by  strangers, 
'but  I,  says  he,  (Christ)  feed  my  children 
with  my  own  flesh:  I  myself  am  their  food: 
for  it  is  my  desire  to  ennoble  you  all,  and  to 
give  you  an  earnest  of  future  blessings. 
Giving  myself  to  you,  as  I  do,  in  this  world, 
I  shall  be  able,  with  much  more  reason,  to 
treat  you  still  better  in  the  other.  I  wished 
to  become  your  brother,  for  you  I  have 
taken  flesh  and  blood;  and  now  moreover  I 
give  you  this  flesh  and  blood  by  which  I  am 
become  of  the  same  nature  with  yourselves.' 
This  blood  produces  in  us  a  brilliant  and 
royal  image:  it  prevents  the  nobleness  of  the 
soul  from  suffering,  when  it  frequently 
sprinkles  and  nourishes  it-- •••This  blood  is 
spread  through  the  soul,  as  soon  as  drunk  : 
it  waters  and  fortifies  it.  This  blood,  when 
worthily  received,  puts  the  devil  to  flight: 
it  invites  and  introduces  to  us  the  angels 
and  the  Lord  of  the  angels.  ••••This  blood, 
being  shed,  washed  and  purified  the  world. 
•  •••And  if  in  the  capital  of  Egypt,  the  sym- 
bol of  this  blood,  being  merely  sprinkled  on 
the  door-posts,  possessed  such  virtue  and 
efficacy,  the  truth  and  reality  is  infinitely 
more  efficacious.  ""It  death  so  much  feared 
the  figure  and  the  shadow,  how  much',  let  me 
ask  you,  will  it  not  fear  the  reality?  ■•••Thus 
every  time  we  partake  of  this  body  and  taste 
this  blood,  let  us  think  that  HE  who  sitteth 
in  heaven  and  whom  the  angels  adore,  is  the 
self-same  whom  we  taste  and  receive  here 
below." 

"But  what!  Do  you  not  see  these  ves- 
sels, upon  the  altar,  of  dazzling  brightness 
and  purity?  Our  souls  ought  to  be  still 
more  resplendent  with  purity  and  sanctity. 
And  why  so?  Because  if  these  vessels  are 
so  well  polished,  it  is  on  our  account;  they 


*29» 


can  neither  taste  nor  feel  Him  whom  they 
contain,  but  we  most  certainly."  .    ... 

"  Consider  O  man  !  the  royal  table  is  laid 
out,  the  angels  attend:  the  King  himself  is 
present :  and  thou  remainest  in  a  stupid  in- 
difference! Thy  garments  are  soiled,  and 
thou  carest  not?  But  they  are  clean  thou 
wilt  say.     Well  then,  adore  and  comma- 

Here  is   the  "  miracle"  stated,  the  caution 
of  the  secret  discipline  removed,   because  he 
spoke  to  the  "initiated;"  tire  true  body  and 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  presented,  ^  adored," 
and  received  in  the  Eucharist.     This  is  the 
"  unbroken  connexion,"  which   you    told  us 
is   so    favourable  to   the  Protestant   "  bread 
and  wine."     This  too,   is   from  one  of  those 
Fathers  over   whose  testimony  you   charged 
me  with  having  passed  lightly.     Would  you 
venture  to  preach  this  doctrine  in  any  Pres- 
byterian   pulpit   in    the   city?     The    people 
would  stare,  for  matters  have  changed  as  re- 
gards their  mere  shadow,  of  that  adorable 
mystery  of  the  Eucharist,  which  a  Chrysos- 
tom  proclaimed  with  such  fervent  eloquence 
to   the   people   of  Antioch,  1400  years  ago. 
Pronounced  in  a  Catholic  pulpit,  however,  it 
would  be  listened  to  as  the  ordinary  doctrine 
of  the  church,    which   teaches   now,  as  she 
taught  when  she  numbered  the  Chrysostoms, 
the°Augustines,    the   Ambroses,   the  Cyrils, 
the  Gregories,  the  Jeromes,  the  Cyprians,  the 
Iren^uses,  and  the  other  lights  of  primitive 
Christianity  among  her  disciples,  her  doc- 
tors and  defenders,  against  the  heresies  of 
wicked  men. 

Let  us  now  look  into  that    "better  light 
of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,"  in  which  we 
are  told  that   the  "  last  traces  of  Romanism 
disappear."     To  avoid  repetition,  I  request 
the  reader  to   turn  to  my  last  letter,  and  he 
will  see  what   Mr.  Breckinridge  calls   "Ro- 
manism," strongly  asserted,  in   the  testimo- 
nies of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  there  quoted. 
But  I   will   add  one  quotation   more,    from 
Justin. Martyr,  who  was  put  to  death  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord,  one  hundred  and  sixty-six. 
In  his   apology  to  the   Emperor  Antonnius 
Pius,  he  says,  describing  the   celebration  of 
the  mysteries, — "Our  prayers  being  finished, 
we  embrace  one  another  with  the  kiss   ol 
peace.     Then  to  him  who  presides  over  the 
brethren,  is  presented  bread,  and  wine  tem- 
pered with  water,   having  received  which,  he 
gives  glory  to  the  Father  of  all  things  in  the 
name  of  the  Son   and  the  Holy  Ghost,   and 
returns  thanks,  in  many  prayers,  that  he  has 
been  deemed  worthy  of  these  gifts.    These 
offices  being  duly  performed,  the  whole  as- 


sembly,   in    acclamation,    answers,     Amen; 
when  the  ministers,  whom   we  call  Deacons, 
distribute  to  each   one   present  a  portion  of 
the  blessed  bread,  and  the   wine  and    water. 
Some  is  also  taken  to  the  absent.     This  food 
we  call  the  Eucharist,    of  which   they  alone 
are   allowed    to    partake,    who   believe    the 
doctrines  taught  by  us,  and   who  have  been 
regenerated    by    water   for  the  remission  of 
sins,   and  who  live  as  Christ  ordained.     Nor 
do  we  take  these  gifts  as  common  bread,  and 
common  drink;  but  as  Jesus  Christ,  our  Sa- 
viour, made  man,  by  the  word  of  God,  took 
flesh   and   blood    for   our    salvation:    in    the 
same   manner,   we   have   often    been   taught 
that  the  food   whtch   has  been  blessed  by  the 
prayer  of  the  words  which  he  spake,  and  by 
which    our   blood   and   flesh,  in  the  change, 
are  nourished,  is  iHE  flesh  and   blood  of 
that  Jesus  incarnate.      The   Apostles  in 
the  commentaries  written  by  them,  which  are 
called  Guspels,*  have  delivered,  that  Jesus  so 
commanded,  when  taking  bread,  having  given 
thanks,  he  said:  '  Dj  this  in  remembrance  of 
me  :   This  is  my  body.''     In  like  manner,  tak- 
ing the   cup,    and    giving    thanks,    he    said: 
'This  is  my  blood:'  and  that   he   distributed 
both  to  them  only."     (Apol.    1.  p.  95.  Lon- 
don Edit.  1722.) 

This  testimony  was  given  about  half  a  cen- 
tury, after  the  death  of  St.  John  the  Evan- 
gelist, and  it  is  so  strongly  Catholic,  that  no 
Protestant  would  dare  to  repeat  it  in  his  pul- 
pit, except  as  "  one  of  the  errors  of  Popery." 
I  might  multiply  quotations  from  the  Fa- 
thers, into  the  extent  of  a  volume.  But 
what  I  have  already  produced,  must  suffice, 
especially  as  you  have  nothing  positive  to 
oppose  them  with — for  I  confess  that  three 
sentences  of  St.  Justin,  St.  Ignatius,  TertuU 
lian,  or  St.  Cyprian,  who  were  the  almost 
immediate  successors  of  the  Apostles— three 
sentences  from  any  of  these,  attesting  the 
real  presenee  of  Christ's  flesh  in  the  Euchar- 
ist, has  more  authority  in  my  mind,  than  a 
thousand  letters  filled  with  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge's cavils,  objections,  and  assertions. 

On  communion  under  one  kind,  I  refer 
him  to  Letter  No-  XXIX,  where  1  showed 
by  arguments  also  unanswered,  that  the  same 
reasoning  which  would  make  it  the  right  of 
all  to  receive  under  both  kinds,  would 
equally  make  it  the  right  of  all  to  conse- 
crate. Until  Mr.  B.  shall  have  condescend- 
ed to  notice  my  arguments,  as  I  stated  them, 
I  shall  not  consider  his  objections  of  mere 
assertion,  worthy  of  further  reply. 

Mr.  Breckinridge  says,  that  I  "  take  it  for 
granted,   that  the  only  thing  concealed  (by 


300 


the  discipline  of  the  secret,)  was  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Eucharist."  I  never  said  any 
such  thing,  noe-did  I  ever  take  it  for  granted. 
This  answer  will  be  sufficient. 

He  says,  "  that  there  is  no  evidence  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  was  among  the 
doctrinal  mysteries  at  all."  Now,  with  all 
due  deference  to  Mr.  Faber,  from  whom  Mr. 
Breckinridge  copies  the  assertion,  I  shall 
show  that  they  are  both  mistaken.  St.  Au- 
gustine, I  should  suppose,  is  a  better  wit- 
ness, than  either.  "  What,"  says  he,  "  is 
there  hidden  in  the  church?  The  Sacra- 
ments of  Baptism,  and  the  Eucharist.  The 
Pagans  see  our  good  works,  but  not  our  Sa- 
craments." (1  in  Psal.  103.) 

Mr.  B.  says  the  "  discipline  of  the  secret 
originated  in  the  second  century."  Tertul- 
lian  says  in  his  Apology,  "It  is  the  common 
law  of  all  mysteries  to  keep  them  secret." 
And  common  sense  shows,  that  this  disci- 
pline would  have  been  useless,  if  the  Pagans 
or  uninitiated,  had,  at  any  time  previously, 
been  acquainted  with  these  mysteries. 

Immediately  after  this,  M.  B.  falls  into 
another  train  of  blunders  and  misrepresen- 
tations by  following  Mr.  Stanley  Faber. 
Blandina  the  slave  was  tortured  to  make  her 
conless  and  disclose  the  "  secret"  of  the 
Christian  mysteries.  She  replied,  says  the 
original,  "  libere  ct  scite,"  that  is,  -'freely 
and  prudently ;"  which  Faber  translated 
"freely  and  boldly."  Irena:us,  who  relates 
the  affair,  was  praising  the  constancy  of 
these  martyrs  and  the  prudence  of  Blandina, 
who,  though  a  slave,  answered  so  prudently 
that  she  betrayed  nothing  of  the  Christian 
mysteries.  Mr.  Faber  puts  the  word  "  bold- 
ly," instead  of  "  prudently,"  or  "  adroitly," 
in  order  to  make  it  appearthat  Blandina  had 
no  secret  to  confess.  Mr.  Breckinridge  fol- 
lows Mr.  Faber,  and  neither,  unfortunately 
for  their  argument,  follows  exactly  the  truth. 

Mr.  Breckenridge  in  reference  to  this, 
says,  "  these  Christians  denied  from  first  to 
last  that  it  was  literal  flesh  and  blood  which 
was  served  up  to  them.  "  Was  not  this,"  he 
asks,  "a  denial  of  the  real  presence?"  Not 
at  all,  Rev.  Sir — Catholics  believe  in  the  real 
presence,  and  in  transubstantiation  now,  as 
they  did  when  Blandina  was  tortured — and 
yet  they  do  not  say  that  they  eat  "  literal 
flesh."  They  do  not,  as  Mr.  B.  constantly 
misrepresents,  hold  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  is 
present  in  the  Eucharist,  in  the  natural  con- 
dition of  human  flesh.  This  I  have  repeatedly 
explained  in  the  course  of  these  letters.  But 
still  he  does  not  hesitate  to  borrow  the  arti- 
fice of  Mr.  Faber,  in  order  to  make  the  doc- 


trine appear  shocking  to  the  minds  of  Pro- 
testants. For  this,  even  the  purity  of  our 
language  must  be  sacrificed,  to  put  forth 
the  solicisms  of  "literal  flesh"  and 
"literal  blood."  The  object  of  this  is 
to  reflect  on  Protestant  minds,  ideas  of 
gross  misconception — which  wiH  operate 
instead  of  argument.  We  never  hear  of  a 
"literal"  house,  a  ''literal"  loaf  of  bread,  or 
a  "■literaV  stage-coach  drawn  by  "literal" 
horses.  The  word  "literal"  cannot  be  ap- 
plied to  a  material  object.  Yet  these  gentle- 
men would  barbarize  the  language,  in  order 
to  pervert  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  which 
they  cannot  refute.  (See  St.  Aug.  De  verb. 
Apost.  Serm.  2.) 

Mr.  B.  says  I  perverted  his  argument 
touching  the  manner  of  Christ's  entrance  into 
the  closed  apartment  where  the  disciples 
were.     His  words,  he  says,  were  these: — 


"  Do  you  forget  that  Christ 
had  power  miraculously  to 
open  a  passage  for  his  body 
through  the  door  or  wall, 
and  close  it  again." 


I  made  him  say,  "  that 
Christ  could  ternove  out  of 
the  wall  or  door,  space  for 
his  body  to  enter  by,  and 
then  close  it  up  again." 


I  willingly  submit  it  to  the  reader  whether 
I  have  perverted,  or  Mr.  B.  has  accused  me 
of  it,  without  cause.  He  then  refers  to  a  sub- 
ject, which  he  ought  to  wish  forgotten,  and 
insinuates  still  that  there  is  a  "prohibition" 
to  read  his  letters.  Does  he  forget,  or  does 
he  suppose  that  the  public  forgets,  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  crept  out  of  this  false  and 
unfounded  charge,  by  exposing  his  friend 
Mr.  Burtt  to  the  pity,  or  the  contempt  of  our 
common  readers? 

Then,  as  if  frightened  at  the  Nestorianism 
of  his  former  letter,  Mr.  Breckinridge  shrinks 
back  from  his  declaration  that  "  it  was  ido- 
latry to  worship  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ." 
But  shunning  Nestorianism,  he  seems  to  lean 
to  the  heresy  of  Eutyches,  and  tells  us  that 
"  the  Divinity  and  humanity  are  inseparably 
blended  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ."  A 
better  theology  would  have  taught  him  to  say 
that  the  two  natures  are  "  inseparably  unit- 
ed" Even  at  Princeton,  I  am  persuaded  this 
distinction  would  be  recognized.  He  says 
.that  in  transubstantiation  we  worship  the 
"body  aZone."  I  reply,  that  when  he  thus 
asserts  what  is  untrue,  he  must  expect  to^be 
contradicted.  We  worship  Jesus  Christ,*  his 
human  and  divine  nature  being  as  insepara- 
bly united  in  the  mystery  of  the  holy  Eucha- 
rist as  in  that  of-the  Incarnation. 

As  to  his  "exposures  of  the  sacrifice  of 
mass,"  I  can  see  only  his  assertions  foe  them. 
I  have  seen  no  refutation  of  my  arguments 
and  authorities  on  that  subject.     He  casts  an 


301 


imputation  on  my  motives,  by  calling  the  sa- 
crifice of  mass  "my  chief  gain."  In  reply 
to  this  indelicate  allusion,  1  have  only  to  re- 
peat, that  if  I  coulil  consent  to  give  up  my 
soul  for  "gain,"  I  should  become  a  Protestant 
at  once.  So  far  as  the  advantages  of  this 
world  are  concerned  in  the  matter,  the  scale 
greatly  preponderates  in  favour  of  Protest- 
antism. 

Now  we  come  to  "  Pope  Liberius."  On 
this,  I  have  only  to  say,  that  whether  he 
signed  the  Arian  creed  or  not,  is  a  matter 
of  very  little  moment  to  the  present  ques- 
tion. He  might  have  signed  it,  and  yet  from 
the  act,  none  of  those  awful  consequences 
which  Mr.  Breckinridge  is  pleased  to  imag- 
ine, would  necessarily  follow.  Besides  even 
Mr.  Breckinridge,  whilst  he  accuses  him,  as- 
cribes the  act  to  compulsion,  "  through  the 
fear  of  death."  Neither  was  Athanasius 
condemned,  even  by  the  Arians,  as  a  Here- 
tic, but  only  as  a  disturber  of  the  peace. 
What  Liberius  is  charged  with  having 
done,  was  not  the  act  of  a  free  agent — 
since,  (if  done  at  all,)  it  was  done  "through 
fear  of  death" — as  even  his  enemies  ac- 
knowledge. Though  this  persecuted  Pon- 
tiff had  done  what  is  charged,  you  must 
remember  that  the  defect,  consisted,  not 
in  signing  a  creed  in  which  the  Arian 
heresy  was  approved,  but  in  signing  a  creed 
in  which  that  heresy  was  not  expressly  con- 
demned. The  word  '  consubstantial'  "of  the 
Nicene  Council,  was  omitted,  and  this  omis- 
sion was  used  by  the  Arians,  as  a  proof  that 
Liberius  had  approved  their  doctrine,  which 
in  fact,  he  condemned,  with  the  sufferings 
and  constancy  of  a  martyr. 

With  regard  to  the  Councils  of  Sirmium 
and  Ariminum,  I  have  only  to  reply  as  be- 
fore, that  no  Council  acknowledged  by  the 
Catholic  church,  signed  the  Arian  creed. 
None  but  Mr.  Breckinridge  could  discover 
in  this  answer,  the  "admission  that  the  said 
Councils  did  adopt  the  Arian  heresy."  He 
can  extract  admission  and  deduce  conse- 
quences, no  matter  what  is  said.  He  fol- 
lows this  pretended  admission  to  its  pre- 
tended consequences,  and  in  two  or  three 
sentences  makes  it  appear  that,  "  therefore, 
it  is  an  article  of  faith  in  the  Roman  church, 
binding  on  all  her  members  at  this  day,  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  not  God, -that  his  divinity, 
is  a  figment,  and  Unitarians  are  right." 
The  Pope  signed  the  Catholic  Council, 
which  condemned  the  Arian  heresy;  "there- 
fore," Catholics  are  bound  to  believe  the 
doctrines — which  their  church  condemned!!! 


This  is  patent  logic.     But  Mr.  Breckinridge 
is  not  the  first  of  that  race,  who 

Without  the  care  of  knowing  right  from  wrong, 
Always  appear  decisive,  clear,  and  strong, 
Where  others  toil  with  philosophic  force, 
Their  nimble  nonsense  takes  a  shorter  course, 
Flings  at  your  head  conviction  in  a  lump, 
And  gains  remote  conclusions  at  a  jump. 

Next  in  order,  comes  the  doctrine  of  "in- 
tention," in  which  Mr.  Breckinridge  fol- 
lows the  lucubrations  of  a  Mr.  Waddle,  who 
has  been  put,  on  a  fair  way  to  immortality  as 
an  author,  by  the  insertion,  in  the  Catholic 
Miscellany,  and  triumphant  refutation,  of  his 
— twaddle.  On  this,  also,  I  repeat,  that  until 
Mr.  Breckinridge  can  produce  some  motive 
or  interest,  in  heaven  or  on  earth,  in  time  or 
in  eternity,  for  a  Priest's  setting  his  mind  de- 
liberately in  opposition  to  the  "intention" 
of  the  church,  in  the  administration  of  the 
Sacraments,  his  objection  is  utterly  inadmis- 
sible. Supposing  that  Baptism,  according 
to  the  Presbyterian  mode,  is  administered 
on  the  stage,  in  mockery,  would  the  Sacra- 
ment be  administered?  The  answer  of  this 
will  justify  the  decision  of  the  "church, 
upon  this  point.  Luther,  in  one  of  the  pro- 
positions condemned  by  Leo  X.* maintained 
that  a  Sacrament  was  validly  administered 
even  though  the  Priest  did  it  in  jest:  (non 
serio,  sedjoco.) 

Against  this  error,  the  church  renewed,  in 
the  council  of  Trent,  the  doctrine  which  had 
been  defined  before,  in  the  Council  of  Flo- 
rence in  the  year  1439,  viz.  that  the  sacra- 
ments should  be  administered  according  to 
the  intention  of  the  church,  or  according  to 
the  end  for  which  Jesus  Christ  instituted 
them.  Still,  even  it  a  clergyman  should  in- 
tend to  cheat  the  recipient  of  the  sacrament, 
(which  is  not  to  be  admitted)  yet  the  conse- 
quences would  not  be  such  as  Mr.  B.  so  pa- 
thetically describes.  In  one  part  of  his  let- 
ter, he  treats  the  sacrifice  of  mass  as  "  idola- 
try;" in  another,  he  makes  the  delivery  of 
souls  from  purgatory  depend  on  the  validity 
of  this  "  idolatrous"  act!  Such,  and  simi- 
lar consequences  does  he  draw  from  his  own 
imagination.  His  objections  are  founded  on 
his  ignorance  of  the  Catholic  doctrine,  or  his 
powers  of  perverting  it.  In  order,  however, 
to  show  this,  let  me  suppose  for  argument 
sake,  the  particular  case  which  he  imagines, 
yet  it  will  not  follow,  as  he  pretends,  that, 
according  to  our  doctrine,  "  little  children 
are  damned."  For  we  do  not  consign  un- 
baptized  infants  to  eternal  damnation,  as 
Presbyterians  do  all  except  those  who  "  pro- 
fess the  true  religion,  and  their  children." 


309 


Again,  in  the  sacrifice  of  mass  the  multitude 
would  not  "  be  guilty  of  idolatry,"  as  he  pre- 
tends; "  for  no  Catholic  teaches  that  the 
mere  external  symbols  are  to  be  adored." 
(Bellar.  Lib.  4.  "de  Euch.  c  29.)  Neither 
would  "the  marriage  ceremony  be  invalid," 
as  he  pretends;  nor,  for  want  of  extreme 
unction,  "  would  all  who  died  under  their 
hands  be  lost  forever."  All  these  are  false 
consequences,  which  you  deduce,  not  from 
our  doctrine,  but  from  ignorance  or  the  mis- 
representation of  it.  But  the  supposition  is 
not  to  be  admitted,  seeing  that  men  are  not 
gratuitously  wicked  ; — and  that,  for  the  sacri- 
ligious  wickedness,  here  supposed,  there  is 
no  motive,  in  time  or  in  eternity. 

Then  comes  the  "  popular  misrepresenta- 
tion" about  the  "liberty  of  the  press  and 
the  iNauisiTioN."  Touching  these  topics, 
Mr.  B.  dilates  with  no  inconsiderable  pow- 
ers of  declamation.  But  declamation  is  a 
sorry  expedient  in  grave  theological  contro- 
versy. The  Church  of  Rome  might  be  op- 
posed to  the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  and  yet,  it 
would  not  follow,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, that  '"  the  Protestant  religion  is  the 
Religion  of  Christ."  Mr.  B.  should  not 
have  forgotten  the  fines  and  imprisonment 
enacted  by  Presbyterians  against  such  as 
should  read  the  Episcopal  Common  Prayer 
Book.  This  fact  among  others,  proves  that 
the  church  to  which  he  belongs  was  the 
tyrannical  enemy  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Press, 
when  she  had  power  to  control  it;  and,  that 
she  would  be  so  again,  if  she  had  the  power, 
is  the  decided  conviction  of  many  enlighten- 
ed Protestants  in  this  country. 

As  for  the  committee  at  Rome,  whose  pro- 
hibition of  books,  Mr.  B.  asserts,  is  "  binding 
on  the  whole  church,"  I  have  only  to  answer, 
that  if  he  will  take  pains  to  be  informed  on 
the  subject,  he  will  find  that  there  are  many 
countries  in  which  the  prohibitory  Index  is 
not  acknowledged — for  example,  Fiance, 
England,  Ireland,  and  our  own  country.  Of 
course,  in  saying  that  he  has  "  exposed  «ie," 
it  happens  that  he  has  only  "exposed  him- 
self." 

He  says  that  THE  BIBLE  is  on  the  pro- 
hibitory Index.  He  should  have  added,  in 
'  truth  and  candour,  that  it  is  the  Protestant 
Bible,  in  particular,  and  not  the  Bible,  in  ge- 
neral, as  his  statement  would  lead  the  reader 
to  suppose.  This  prohibition  is  quite  natural, 
when  it  is  recollected  that  Catholics  regard 
the  Protestant  Bible  as  a  spurious  version, 
mistranslated,  and  containing  only  a  part  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures.  Throughout  his  let- 
ters, Mr.  B.  has  kept  up  this  unfounded  ac- 


cusation, that  the  church  is  inimical  to  the 
perusal  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  It  may  be 
well  to  state  a  few  facts  to  show  how  false  is 
this  charge,  and  how  groundless  is  this  Pro- 
testant clamour,  kept  up  without  cause. 

The  Catholic  church,  by  whose  ministry, 
and  to  whose  faith,  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  that  have  abandoned  Paganism,  were 
converted,  has  always  been  zealous  to  disse- 
minate the  sacred  Scriptures  among  her  chil- 
dren. Witness  the  fact,  that  so  early  as  the 
fourth  century,  St.  Augustine  testifies  that 
"  the  number  of  those  who  had  translated  the 
Scriptures  from  the  Hebrew  into  the  Greek 
might  be  computed,  but  that  the  number  of 
those  who  had  translated  the  Greek  into  the 
Latin,  could  not  be  computed."  At  that 
period,  Latin,  we  should  observe,  was  the 
language  of  the  Western  Empire. 

Again,  in  1552,  when  the  Maronite  Chris- 
tians returned  to  the  communion  of  the 
church,  under  Pope  Julius  III.  anew  edition 
of  the  Syriac  version  was  printed  at  Vienna, 
and  transmitted  to  Syria. 

Pope  Paul  III.  in  1548,  published  at  Rome 
an  Ethiopic  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
for  the  use  of  the  Christians  in  Ethiopia. 

In  1591,  an  Arabic  version  of  the  whole 
Bible  was  published  at  Rome.  And  in  the 
year  1671,  another  edition,  in  three  volumes 
folio,  of  the  same  version,  from  the  press  of 
the  Propaganda. 

Again,  in  1591,  an  Arabic  version  of  the 
four  Gospels  was  printed  at  the  Medicean 
press  in  Rome,  for  the  use  of  the  Arabic 
Christians  in  communion  with  the  church. 

Even  in  the  Chinese  language,  notwith- 
standing it  is  "So  difficult  and  so  few  can  read 
it,  a  harmony  of  the  four  Gospels  was  pre- 
pared by  the  Jesuits,  and  is  mentioned  with 
praise  by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
ciety in  their  first  Report. 

The  fact  is,  that  as  soon  as  printing  was 
invented,  the  church  availed  herself  of  the 
discovery,  for  the  purpose  of  multiplying  co- 
pies of  the  Scripture  in  every  language.  Lu- 
ther's translation  in  Germany  in  1522  and 
1530,  had  been  preceded   nearly  a  century, 

1.  by  the  Catholic  edition  of  Fust,  printed  at 
Mentz  in  1462.  2.  By  that  of  Bemler,  print- 
ed at  Augsburg,  1467.  And  3.  By  the  four 
versions  which  Beausobre  mentions  in  his 
4th  book  of  the  History  of  the  Reformation. 

The  French  Protestant  version  is  that  of 
Olivetan  assisted  by  Calvin,  published  in 
1537,  it  had  been  preceded  by  different  Catho- 
lic versions.  First,  the  New  Testament  by  Ju- 
lian the  Augustinian  Monk,  printed  in  1477. 

2.  A  version  of  the  whole  Bible,  by  Guyards 


303 


des  Moulins,  printed  1490.  3.  By  that  of 
Estaple,  printed ,  the  New  Testament  in  1 523, 
the  Old  Testament,  in  1528. 

The  Italian  Protestant  version  was  printed 
in  1562.  It  had  been  preceded  by,  1.  the 
Catholic  version  of  Malermis,  in  1471.  2. 
By  that  ot  Brucciolis,  in  1532;  on  which  the 
Protestant  translation  was  generally  founded. 

In  Belgium,  the  first  Protestant  transla- 
tion was  that  of  Luther,  published  in  1527, 
It  had  been  preceded  by  a  Catholic  version  of 
the  four  Gospels,  printed  in  1472;  and  by 
another  Catholic  version  of  the  whole  Bible, 
printed  at  Cologne,  in  1475;  and  again  at 
Delft,  in  1477;  at  Gouda,  in  1479,  and  both 
at  Antwerp,  in  1518.  It  is  useless  to  extend 
the  testimonies  ;  when  it  is  well  known  that 
in  Italy  alone,  and  with  the  Pope's  approba- 
tion, more  than  TWENTY  editions  of  the 
Bible,  have  been  published  in  the  vulgar 
tongue. 

With'these  facts  on  historical  record,  is  it 
not  surprising  to  hear  ignorant  Protestants, 
misleading  other  Protestants,  yet  more  igno- 
rant than  themselves,  by  the  false  charge 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  that  she  is  hostile 
to  the  Scriptures  ?  The  rules  established  sub- 
sequently, by  the  Church  to  regulate  the  use 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  were  dictated  by  the 
glaring  abuse  to  which  the  sacred  Volume 
was  exposed  in  the  hands  of  the  Protestants, 
during  the  fanaticism  of  the  Reformation. 
These  abuses  are  acknowledged  by  learned 
Protestants,  no  less  than  by  Catholics.  A 
learned  minister  of  the  English  Protestant 
Church,  describes  some  of  these  excesses, 
and  accounts  for  them,  as  Catholics  do,  not 
by  charging  the  Scriptures  as  the  source  of 
impiety,  buff  by  showing  that  they  are  liable 
to  be  misunderstood,  when  left  to  the  igno- 
rance, and  daring  rashness  of  mere  private 
interpretation.  As  an  example,  he  says, 
"The  private  judgment  of  Munzer  discov- 
ered, in  Scripture,  that  titles  of  nobility,  and 
large  estates  were  'impious  encroachments 
on  the  natural  equality  of  the  faithful,'  and  he 
invited  his  followers  to  examine  the  Scrip- 
tures whether  these  things  were  so?'  They 
examined — praised  God — and  proceeded 
with  fire  and  sword,  to  the  extirpation  of  the 
ungodly,  and  the  seizure  of  their  property. 
Private  judgment,  also,  thought  it  discover- 
ed, in  the  Bible,  that  established  laws  were 
« standing  restraints  on  Christian  lliberty;' 
that  the  "  elect  were  incapable  of  sinning," 
and  might  innocently  obey  all  the  propensi- 
ties of  nature." 

"John  of  Leyden, laying  down  his  thimble, 
and  taking  up  his  Bible,  surprised  the  city  of 
a* 


Munster,  at,the  head  of  a  rabble  of  frantic 
enthusiasts,  proclaimed  himself  'King  of 
Zion,'-and  ran  naked  through  the  streets, 
vociferating  that  '  whatever  •  is  highest  on 
earth,  would  be  brought  low,  and  whatever 
is  lowest,  should  be  exalted.'  To  keep  his 
word,  he  made  his  common  executioner,  his 
minister  of  state,  and  his  minister  of  state, 
his  common  executioner.  Improving  on  the 
example  of  the  Patriarchs,  he  'took  unto 
him'  fourteen  wives  at  once,  affirming,  that 
Polygamy  was  Christian  liberty,  and  the 
privilege  of  the  Saints.'  "  (Thoughts  on 
the  tendency  of  Bible  Societies,  p.  8.) 

When  Europe  presented  spectacles  of  this 
kind,  wherever  the  Reformation  prevailed, 
and  when  the  actors  referred  to  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture for  the  justification  of  their  doctrines  and 
conduct,  was  it  not  natural,  nay  more,  I  would 
ask  the  sober  judgment  of  Protestants,  was 
it  not  even  wise,  in  the  church  to  establish 
regulations  for  the  right  use  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures?  But  the  facts  submitted  above 
amply  vindicate  the  church  from  the  ignorant 
and  unfounded  charge  of  being  hostile  to  their 
dissemination:  even  if  we  had  not  the  express 
declaration  of  Pope  Pius  VI.  who,  in  a  letter 
to  Martini,  on  his  translation  of  the  Bible 
into  Italian,  says:  "that  the  faithful  should 
be  excited  to  the  reading  of  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures: for  these  are  the  most  abundant 
sources  which  ought  to  be  left  open  to  every 
one,  to  draw  from  them  purity  of  morals  and 
of  doctrine,  to  eradicate  the  errors  which 
are  widely  disseminated  in  these  corrupt 
times."  (See  this  letter  prefixed  to  every 
Catholic  Bible.) 

If  Mr.  Breckinridge  were  better  inform- 
ed, he  would  know  that  the  placing  of  a 
book  on  the  Index  at  Rome,  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  the  condemnation  of  the  whole 
work.  Aud  if  Locke,  Milton,  Galileo,  and 
so  forth,  be  on  the  catalogue,  it  is  not  be- 
cause the  authors  were  good  poets,  or  philo- 
sophers, but  because  they  were  bad  theolo- 
gians. But  I  am  at  no  loss  to  conceive  the 
opinion  which  the  intelligent  reader  will 
form  of  my  opponent's  acquaintance  with 
the  history  of  literature,  when  he  reads  the 
following  assertion.  "  This  is  a  war  of  ex- 
termination waged  by  the  authority  of  the 
church  against  letters,  liberty,  and  con- 
science!" Thousands  of  learned  Protes- 
tants, enemies  of  the  church,  no  less  than 
Mr.  Breckinridge,  have  acknowledged,  that 
to  the  zeal  of  the  church,  and  to  the  labours 
of  the  monks,  the  world  is  indebted  at  this 
day  for  the  preservation  of  ancient  litera- 
ture.   As  for  " liberty"  and  "conscience," 


304 


they  are  words  which  Mr.  Breckinridge 
plays  off,  to  catch  the  popular  sympathy. 
I  contend,  and  in  the  course  of  these  letters 
have  shown,  that  "liberty,"  and  "con- 
science," never  had  a  deadlier  enemy  to 
struggle  against,  than  Presbyterianism  in 
power.  Then  he  appeals  to  a  "  free  peo- 
ple;"— as  if  engaged  to  carry  a  favourite  can- 
didate at  an  election,  instead  of  furnishing 
arguments  to  show  that  4'  the  Protestant  Re- 
ligion is  the  Religion  of  Christ." 

Next  follows  his  attack  on  the  "JESU- 
ITS," in  which,  instead  of  admitting  with 
the  candour  of  a  generous  mind,  that  such  a 
Society  is  not  to  be  condemned  for  the  vices 
of  a  few  of  its  members — he  attacks  them  in 
globo.  He  repeats  the  slanders  with  which 
they  were  attacked  by  the  infidels  of  Eu- 
rope; for  it  is  their  glory,  that  infidels  have 
always  laboured  for  their  destruction.  This 
is  proved  by  the  private  correspondence  of 
Voltaire  and  D'Alembert,  in  which,  plot- 
ting the  destruction  of  Christianity,  these 
patriarchs  of  Deism,  acknowledged  that  there 
was  no  hope  of  success,  unless  the  Jesuits 
were  first  put  down.  Every  base  artifice  was 
resorted  to,  to  blind  the  judgment,  and  rouse 
the  enmity  of  kings  and  governments, 
against  the  Society.  The  Pope  who  sup- 
pressed it,  made  no  charge  of  immorality 
against  them;  but  acted  with  a  view  to 
avert  the  hurricane  of  civil  persecution, 
which  their  enemies  had  excited  against 
them,  from  every  quarter.  With  reference 
to  their  persecution,  by  the  Portuguese  go- 
vernment, a  liberal  Protestant  says,  speak- 
ing of  their  college  in  Pernambuco,  "Reader 
throw  a  veil  over  thy  recollection  for  a  little 
while,  and  forget  the  cruel,  unjust,  and  un- 
merited censures  thou  hast  heard  against  an 
unoffending  order.  This  palace  was  once 
the  Jesuits'  College,  and  originally  built  by 
those  charitable  fathers.  Ask  the  aged  and 
respectable  inhabitants  of  Pernambuco,  and 
they  will  tell  thee,  that  the  destruction  of 
the  Society  of  Jesus,  was  a  terrible  disaster 
to  the  public,  and  its  consequence  severely 
felt  to  the  present  day." 

"  When  Pombal  took  the  reins  of  govern- 
ment into  his  hands,  virtue  and  learning 
beamed  within  the  college  walls.  Public  ca- 
techism to  the  children,  and  religious  instruc- 
tion to  all,  flowed  daily  from  the  mouths  of 
its  venerable  priests.  They  were  loved,  re- 
vered, and  respected  throughout  the  whole 
town.  The  illuminating  philosophers  of  the 
day  had  sworn  to  exterminate  Christian  know- 
ledge, and  the  college  of  Pernambuco  was 
doomed  to  founder  in  the  general  storm.   To 


the  long-lasting  sorrow  and  disgrace  of  Por"* 
tugal,  the  philosophers  blinded  her  king,  and 
flattered  her  prime  minister.  Pombal  was 
exactly  the  tool  these  sappers  of  every  public 
and  private  virtue  wanted.  He  had  the  naked 
sword  of  power  in  his  own  hand,  and  his 
heart  was  as  hard  as  flint.  He  struck  a  mor- 
tal blow,  and  the  society  of  Jesus,  throughout 
the  Portuguese  dominions,  was  no  more." — 
(Wanderings  in  S.  America,  &c  By  Charles 
Waterton,  Esq.  p.  82.) 

When  the  Jesuits  can  point  to  testimonies 
like  the  above,  in  a  hundred  Protestant  au- 
thors, the  authority  of  any  one  of  whom  is 
equal,  at  least,  to  that  of  Mr.  Breckinridge, 
they  may  bear  with  great  equanimity  those 
slanders,  propagated  against  them  in  Europe 
by  the  sworn  enemies  of  the  name  of  Christ, 
and  of  which,  it  was  the  singular  honour  of 
the  society  to  be  the  distinguished  victims. 

Mr.  B.  tells  us  that  "  one*,  guileless  Pro- 
testants confided  their  children  to  the  train- 
ing of  these  men.  But  it  is  becoming  appa- 
rent they  will  do  so  no  more."  This  unlucky 
sentence  shows  an  ulterior  motive  for  the  at- 
tack on  the  Jesuits.  And  for  the  consolation 
of  my  Rev.  opponent,  I  can  assure  him  that 
so  far  from  this  being  the  fact,  the  number  of 
Protestant  students  in  the  Jesuits'  college  in 
Georgetown  is,  of  late,  much  augmented,  and 
daily  increasing.  Some,  and  not  a  few,  of 
the  most  learned  and  distinguished  citizens 
of  our  country,  prefer  that  Institution  for  the 
education  of  their  sons.  And  so  long  as  the 
public  mind  is  imbued  with  knowledge  and 
discernment,  the  education  imparted  in  a  col- 
lege of  Jesuits  will  be  preferred  to  that  which 
Presbyterian  Institutions  are  in  the  habit  of 
administering.  Much  calumniated  as  the 
Jesuits  have  been,  even  their  enemies  have 
acknowledged  them  to  be  the  most  learned 
body  of  men  that  ever  laboured  in  the  work 
of  education. 

We  are  next  introduced  to  the  INQUISI- 
TION, on  which  Mr.  B.,  like  his  predeces- 
sors, is  quite  pathetic.  Of  this  I  said,  "it 
may  have  been  a  good  Institution — abused." 
And  I  am  sure  that  there  is  nothing  criminal 
in  this  reply.  Now  its  abuses  I  condemn  as 
much  as  Mr.  B.  himself.  But  it  is  manifest 
that  he  has  derived  his  knowledge  of  the  In- 
quisition, not  from  any  critical,  candid  in- 
vestigation of  the  Institution,  or  of  the  cir- 
cumstances which  must  be  taken  into  consi- 
deration, to  form  even  a  just  idea  of  it.  Pro- 
testants, generally,  imbibe  their  notions  of  it 
from  distorted  portraits  of  hostile  writers. 

If  Mr.  B.  wishes  to  be  correctly  informed? 
let  him  consult  the  history  of  the  Inquisition 


305 


by  Count  Le  Maistre,  which  may  be  purchas- 
ed at  Mr.  Cummiskey's  book  store,  in  Sixth 
street,  above  Spruce.  Until  he  give  some 
proof  that  he  has  read  some  author  not  avow- 
edly hostile,  what  I  have  said  is  sufficient  in 
reply  to  charges  founded  either  on  ignorance 
or  misrepresentation.  For  the  information  of 
the  reader,  however,  I  would  remark  that  the 
doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion  and  the  tri- 
bunal of  the  Inquisition  are  essentially  dis- 
tinct, the  one  from  the  other — which  is  proved 
by  the  fact  that  only  in  two  or  three  countries 
in  the  whole  Catholic  world  was  the  Inquisi- 
tion ever  established. 

But  does  Mr.  B.  forget  that,  as  has  already 
been  shown,  Protestants  put  to  death  their 
fellow  Protestants,  for  exercising  the  mere 
liberty  of  conscience  ?  Does  he  forget  the 
Protestant,  as  well  as  Catholic  blood,  shed 
by  the  Presbyterians  in  Geneva,  Holland, 
England,  Ireland,  Scotland,  and  New  Eng- 
land itself?  Does  he  forget  the  barbarous  acts 
of  the  British  parliament  and  Scotch  assem- 
bly against  the  Catholics,  during  a  period  of 
three  hundred  years  ?  What  were  all  these 
but  the  "Inquisition,"  under  other  and  more 
refined  names?  Does  he  forget  the  "scaven- 
ger's daughter"  and  other  instruments  of  tor- 
ture, used  in  the  Tower  of  London,  by  Eliza- 
beth and  her  successors?  Does  he  forget  that 
the  eighth  act  of  the  Presbyterian  Assembly 
of  1699,  directed  "  that  according  to  the  for- 
mer acts  of  assemblies  and  acts  of  parliament, 
the  names  of  Popish  priests  and  Jesuits,  and 
trafficking  Papists,  and  of  tiiose  who  have 
sent  their  children  to  Popish  colleges  and 
countries*  be  given  in  to  each  provincial 
synod,  and  by  them  transmitted  to  the  re- 
spective magistrates,  to  the  effect  that  they 
may  be  proceeded  against  according  to  law." 
What  is  all  this  but  the  Inquisition — under 
other  names? 

But  what  after  all  is  the  object  of  these 
questions  about  the  liberty  of  the  press,  the 
Jesuits,  the.  Inquisition,  &c  &c ?  The  object 
is  manifest.  Unable  to  prove  that  "  the  Pro- 
testant religion  is  the  religion  of  Christ,"  ot- 
to answer  my  arguments  in  proof  of  the  con- 
trary, he  endeavours  to  divert  public  atten- 
tion from  the  real  question,  and  to  entrench 
himself  in  a  position  better  suited  to  his  re- 
sources— where  he  hopes  to  sustain  himself, 
if  not  by  argument,  at  least  by  the  prejudices 
of  popular  feeling.  To  this  popular  feeling- 
he  thinks  to  betray  me,  by  putting  me  on  the 
defence  of  the  Jesuits,  the  Inquisition,  and 
so  forth.  He  seems  to  have  taken  the  hint 
from  the  policy  of  those  who  said,  "  Master, 
is  it  lawful  to  pay  tribute  to  Csesar  or  not?" 


Next  in  order  are  the  "JEWISH  TRA- 
DITIONS," of  which  I  said,  that  "  so  far  as 
they  regarded  the  proof  of  the  Jewish  faith, 
before  the  coming  of  Christ,  I  do  not  reject 
them."  From  this  answer  Mr.  B.  draws  the 
inference  that,  "of  course  all  their  tradi- 
tions to  that  time  were  infallible."  I  answer 
no;  but  only  those  that  appertained  to^the 
"proof  of  the  Jewish  faith."  These  our  Sa- 
viour did  not  touch,  in  his  rebuke  to  the  Pha- 
rasees,  but  only  those  false  traditions  which 
did  not  appertain  to  the  u  proof  of  their  faith." 
Why  was  it  necessary  to  change  the  answer? 
If  fairly  dealt  with,  it  excludes  all  the  false 
consequences  which  he  deduces  from  his 
own  perversion  of  it. 

Mr.  B.  asks,  "  is  there  any  evidence  of  the 
Pope's  supremacy,  before  the  Council  of 
Nice?"  He  says  no — /  answer  yes«  And  I 
refer  him  to  the  proofs  which  I  have  already 
adduced  from  the  writing  of  St.  Cyprian,  Ire- 
naeus  and  other  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  and 
which  he  has  not  denied,  nor  yet  attempted 
to  refute.  But  another  "  evidence"  is  the 
fact,  that  in  the  first  century,  while  some  of 
the  Apostles  were  still  living,  a  dispute,  which 
arose  in  the  church  at  Corinth,  was  referred 
to  Pope  Clement,  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  settled 
by  his  authority.  The  epistle  which  he  ad- 
dressed to  the  Corinthians  on  the  occasion  is 
still  extant.  In  it  he  calls  the  "  divisions 
which  had  just  appeared  among  them,  im- 
pious and  detestable."  He  says,  "  to  Fortu- 
natus,"  (who  had  carried  their  appeal  to  him) 
"  we  have  added  four  deputies :  send  them 
back  as  speedily  as  possible  in  peace,  that  ice 
may  be  informed  of  the  return  of  union  and 
peace  among  you,  for  which  we  pray  without 
ceasing:  and  that  we  may  be  enabled  to  re- 
joice at  the  re-establishment  of  good  order 
among  our  brethren  at  Corinth."  This  very 
appeal,  from  Corinth  to  Rome,  and  this  send- 
ing of  "  deputies"  to  settle  the  dispute,  are 
at  once,  the  recognition  and  the  exercise  of 
the  Pope's  supremacy.  But  to  this,  and  the 
several  instances  already  mentioned,  we  might 
add  many  others  still.  Eusebius  tells  us,  that 
[renaeus  remonstrated  with  the  Pope,  Victor, 
against  the  excommunication  of  the  Bishop  of 
— Asia.  "He  becomingly  also,"  says  Euse- 
bius, "  admonishes  Victor,  not  to  cut  off  whole 
churches  of  God,  who  observed  the  tradition 
of  an  ancient  custom."  (Chap.24.  p.  209-210.) 
Does  not  th\s  entreaty  acknowledge  his  su- 
premacy ?  And  all  this  was  before  the  Council 
of  Nice. 

Mr.  B.  asks,  "  did  the  second  Council  of 
Pisa  decree  a  Reformation  in  faith  or  not?" 


306 


I  answer,  that  no  Catholic  Council — no  Coun- 
cil acknowledged  by  the  church,  ever  decreed 
a  Reformation  in  faith. 

He  asks,"  did  the  Council  of  Lateran  pass 
an  anathema  against  those  rulers,  who  should 
tax  ecclesiastics  ?"  I  reply  that  it  expressly 
referred  to  extortions  exacted  from  ecclesias- 
tics by  petty  tyrants, contrary  to  the  immuni- 
ties secured  to  them  by  previously  existing 
laws. 

With  regard,  finally,  to  "  Extreme  Unc- 
tion," Mr.  B.  infers  that  in  as  much  as  I  have 
not  specified  the  time  of  its  institution,  as  a 
sacrament,  therefore  it  was  not  established  at 
all.  I  answer,  that  the  fact  of  its  existence 
is  clearly  established  by  the  text  of  St.  James, 
quoted  in  my  last  letter.  And  besides,  his 
reasoning  is  not  only  illogical,  but  anti-scrip- 
tural ;  since  St.  John  tells  us  that  "  there  are 
also  many  other  things  which  Jesus  did," 
which  are  not  written.  Mr.  B.  charges  me 
with  "contradicting  the  Council  of  Trent." 
The  Council  says,  "this  sacrament  was  first 
intimated  in  Mark  vi.  13.  And  I  said  that  it 
was  not  administered  then.  Where  is  the 
contradiction?  Neither  did  an  Apostle  in- 
stitute it.  But  an  Apostle,  St.  James,  in  the 
fifth  chapter  of  his  epistle,  attests  its  existence, 
and  enjoins  the  use  of  it.  The  Council  does 
not  contradict  itself,  as  Mr.  B.  says,  but  he 
invents  a  supposition  for  the  Council,  and 
draws  the  pretended  contradiction  from  his 
own  invention,  on  the  one  side,  and  from  what 
the  Council  really  did  say  on  the  other;  on 
these  he  forms  his  "  dilemma  from  which,"  he 
says,  "  it  is  impossible  to  escape ! !"  But 
"  i/,"  says  he,  "  this  sacrament  was  instituted, 
Mark  vi.  13.  (as  it  was,  if  ever)  then  the 
Apostles  administered  a  sacrament,  not  being 
priests ;  but  the  Council  of  Trent  says  that 
Bishops  and  Priests  are  the  proper  ministers 
of  this  sacrament."  Whence  he  concludes 
that  the  Council  contradicts  itself.  Now  the 
council  did  not  say  that  it  was  instituted  or 
administered  in  Mark  vi.  13.  hut  only  "inti- 
mated." Which  proves  that  the  Council  did 
not  err,  did  not  contradict  itself,  but  merely 
contiadicts  Mr.  Breckinridge. 

Before  I  pass  to  the  various  attempts  of  Mr. 
B.  to  answer  the  five  "  stale  questions,"  which 
appertain  immediately  to  the  topic  of  discus- 
sion, I  must  be  allowed  to  make  a  few  gene- 
ral remarks.  The  first  is,  that,  from  the 
commencement  of  the  controversy,  instead  of 
preserving  unity  of  subject,  in  that  simple,  but 
lucid  order  which  men  who  write  with  the  love 
of  truth  are  studious  to  preserve,  he,  in  open 
violation  of  the  rules  subscribed  by  himself, 


has  continued  to  crowd  letter  after  letter  with 
matter  altogether  extraneous  from  the  sub- 
ject. Every  succeeding  letter  from  his  pen 
is  but  a  more  confused  repetition  of  the  same 
subjects,  on  which,  from  the  2d  to  the  last,  he 
has  continued  to  ring  the  changes.  If  he  had, 
as  he  was  bound  to  do,  given  but  one,  or,  at 
most,  two  subjects  in  each  of  his  letters,  al- 
lowing me  to  do -the  same,  then  our  letters 
might  have  been  equally  instructive,  to  both 
catholics  and  protestants.  But  this  did  not 
suit  Mr.  B.  When  I  argued  on  the  Rule  of 
Faith,  he  argued  on  persecution,  purgatory, 
&c.  <fec.  When  I  argued  against  the  preten- 
sions of  the  Protestant  Religion,  he  argued 
against  the  Jesuits  and  the  Inquisition,  al- 
though "the  Rule  of  Faith,"  and  "the  Pro- 
testant  Religion"  were  the  only  subjects  on 
which,  until  they  should  be  exhausted,  he  was 
authorised  by  a  mutual  engagement,  to  write. 
What  says  the  world  of  those  who  deliberately 
break  their  engagements? 

Again,  in  upright  controversy,  no  man 
charges  on  the  cause  of  his  opponent  doctrines 
or  principles,  which  his  opponent  disclaims, 
as  not  belonging  to  the  cause.  Yet  has  Mr. 
B.  compelled  me  again  and  again  to  disclaim 
the  same  falsely  imputed  principles  and  tenets. 
He  has  acted  throughout,  on  the  assumption, 
that  he  knows  the  Catholic  religion  better 
than  I  do,  and  that  he  is  to  be  believed  in 
preference  :  although,  in  so  many  instances  I 
have  convicted  him  of  ignorance  respecting 
it,  and  of  the  natural  consequence  of  igno- 
rance— misrepresentation.  Of  his  false  quo- 
tations in  general,  I  shall  not  say  any  thing. 
A  flagrant  instance,  is  still  fresh  in  the  memo- 
ry of  the  public — in  the  case  of  Baronius. 

Finally,  he  writes  a  letter,  in  which  he  re- 
asserts objections  and  arguments  that  have 
been  answered  by  facts,  authorities  and  rea- 
soning in  the  progress  of  the  discussion— 
assP7-ts  that,  they  have  not  been  refuted,  and 
with  this  letter,  proposes  to  close  the  contro- 
versy !  !  Now  I  have  the  right  to  reply,  and 
the  reader  will  perceive  that  I  have  replied 
without  broaching  either  new  matter,  or  new 
arguments. 

Besides  the  fact  that  Mr.  B.  has  crowded  all 
the  sophistries  of  all  his  letters,  into  this  last 
production,  to  which,  it  seems,  he  took  it  for 
granted  that  I  would  not  claim  the  right  of 
replying,  he  issues  in  it  a  recommendation  to 
the  public,  of  many  of  the  vilest  productions, 
that  have  ever  been  written  against  catholics 
and  their  religion.  I  may  mention,  as  a  sam- 
ple, the  pretended  "  Secreta  Monita"  of  the 
Jesuits,  a  work  which  even  the  bigoted  Leslie 


307 


Foster,  acknowledged  in  the  British  House 
of  Commons,  to  be  a  «  forgery,"  got  up  by  their 
enemies.     It  was  worthy  of  Princeton  to  have 
published  this  "  forgery,"  and  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian clergy  to  recommend  this  infamous  work 
to   the   "  American  people,"  as  containing  a 
faithful  expose  of  the  secret   maxims  of  that 
calumniated  body.     If  he  wished  his  Protest- 
ant readers  to  be  acquainted  with  the  doctrines 
of  the  Catholics,  to  learn  how  lacked  they  are, 
he  should   have  told  them  to  read  approved 
Catholic  books,  explaining  their  doctrines, and 
ffivincr  reasons  for  their  belief.     But  he  re- 
commends,  instead    of   these,   the    "  Secreta . 
Monita,"  a  forgery,  and  the  "  Key  to  Popery,    ] 
whose  very  title   indicates   its  enmity.     Sin- 
cere minds  will  see  through  the  object  of  all 

^But  what  has  become  of  THE  QUESTION, 
in  the  mean  while  ]  » Is  the  Protestant  Reli- 
gion   THE    REEIGION    OF    CHRIST]" 

1  Mr  B.  has  never  ventured  to  tell  us  what 
the  Protestant  Religion  is'?— Except  that  it  is 
«  the  Religion  of  the  Reformation."  This  is  de- 
fining a  thing  by  itself— and  according  to  this, 
a  ma°n  has  only  to  protest  against  the  Catholic 
Church— then  he  is  a  member  of  the  Protestant 
Religion;  and,  what  is  the  same  thing,  (it  we 
may  "believe  Mr.  B.)  a  member  of  the  Religion  of 
Christ !     All  this,  simply  by  protesting  against 

°2dQuestion  :  "  Did  any  society  of  Christians, 
previous  to  Luther,  ever  profess  the  doctrines  ot 
Protestantism  in  general,  or  of  any  sect  of  it,  in 
particular]"  _     , 

Mr   B.  in  his  last  letter  proceeds  to  the  final 
settlement  of  this  question.     "  You  will  admit 
says  he,  "  that  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  Apos- 
tles, and   recorded  in   the  Bible  are  true  Chris- 
tianity—so  do  I."     All  correct.     "  We  both  al- 
low also,"  he  continues,  "that  these  doctrines 
have  been  according  to  Christ's  promise  to  his 
church,  held  and  taught  by  the  true  church  ever 
since."     All  correct  again;    so  far  I   could    not 
have   framed  a  better  argument  on   the   Catholic 
side      For   since   the   doctrines   of  Christ  have 
been  «  held  and   taught"  at  all  times  by  the  true 
church,  as  he  acknowledges ;— and,  since  he  can- 
not find  in  the  whole  world,  previous  to  Luther,  a 
ociety  of  Christians  who  "held  and  taught    as 
Protestants  do,  therefore,  the  claims  of  Protest- 
antism to  be  the  true  religion  of  Christ,  are  cut 
off,  by  his   own   argument.     But  let  us  see  the 
conclusion  which  he  draws  from  the  above  pre- 
mises.    "Then"    says   he,   "if   your   doctrines 
contradict  the   Bible  at  every  step,  and  if  ours 
harmonize  with  it,  it  follows  that  we  are  the  true 
church,  and  that  our  doctrines  have  been  taught  and 
held  in  every  age."     Then,  he  goes  on  to  show 
that  the  "  ifs  "  on  which  the  sophistry  of  his  con- 
clusion turns,  are  no  obstacle— "  1  have  proved— 
I  have  proved— I  have  proved"— as  though   he 
had  in  fact  "  proved"   any  thing,  except  his  ma- 
■  ity  to  prove  what  he  had  undertaken  to  prove; 


viz.  "  that  the  Protestant  Religion  is  the  Religion 
of  Christ."  He  first  said  that  the  Waldenses,— 
then,  the  Greeks,— then,  the  Ante-Nicene  Fa- 
thers "held  and  taught"  the  doctrines  of  Protest- 
antism. I  leave  it  to  the  reader  whether,  in 
every  instance,  I  have  not  proved  the  contrary. 
At  last  he  retreats  to  the  Bible,  (just  as  Unita- 
rians do,)  and  tells  us  that  the  Protestant  doc- 
trines are  the  doctrines  of  that  divine  book, 
(which  I  deny)  therefore  they  must  have  been 
"held  and  taught"  by  the  true  church,  from  the 
commencement,  although  he  cannot  tell  by  whom, 
or  where! 

3d  Question  :  "  Whether  Christ  revealed  all 
the  doctrines  of  Protestantism,  beginning  with 
Episcopalianism  and  ending  with  Unitananism. 
This  remains  as  it  was  before  his  last  letter.  He 
does  not  venture  to  repeat  the  assertion,  that 
Christ  could  have  revealed  contradictory  doc- 
trines. 

4th  Question:  "Whether  the  Reformers  re- 
ceived any  new  ministerial  authority,  to  supply 
the  place  of  that  which  the  Church  recalled  from 
them,  in  their  excommunication]"  To  this  he 
replies,  that  "  if  a  minister  of  Christ  is  deposed 
lor  refusing  to  sin,  the  deposition  is  null  and 
void."  This  is  not  the  question.  The  question 
is  by  what  new  ministerial  authority  did  the 
Reformers  create  new  religions]  For  no  soclety 
of  Christians,  as  we  have  seen,  ever  "held  and 
tauo-ht"  their  doctrines  before. 

This  has  been  acknowledged  by  the  Reformers 
themselves.     Luther  says  expressly,  that  "for  a 
loner  time  he  stood  alone."     Calvin,  in  his  letter 
to   Melanchthon  in   1552,  says,   "  we  have  been 
obliged   to   separate   from   the    whole  world. 
This    is    undeniably    manifest.      Whence    then, 
«  standing  alone,"  excommunicated  by  the  church, 
and     "  separated    from     the     whole    world,   — 
whence  their  new  authority  1     It  was  not  from 
men      If  it  was  from  God,  God  would  have  seal- 
ed this  new  work  with   the  power  of  miracles. 
Did  the  Reformers  ever  prove  by  this  test,   that 
God    had   sent  them]     Erasmus,   who    was  ac- 
quainted  with   them,   says,  "  they  could  not  so 
so  much  as  cure  a  lame  horse."     By  their  own 
admission  they  separated  from  the  church,  and  by 
their  own  doctrine    they  are  condemned   for  this 
crime  alone.     Calvin  tells  us,  that  "to  separate 
from  the  church,  is  to  renounce  Jesus  Lhnst.    .... 
Then,    Calvin    himself,   must  have    "renounced 
Jesus  Christ,"  having,  as  he  admits,  "separated 
from  the  whole  world."  . 

The  condemnation  of  Athanasius  by  the  Arians, 
furnishes  no  parallel  to  the  case  of  the  Reformers. 
He  was  deposed  by  the  violence  of  those  Here- 
tics, from  whom  he  had  received  no  authority. 
But  the  Reformers  were  excommunicated  by  the 
very  church  which  had  ordained  them,  and  joined 
themselves  to  no  other  society.  Therefore,  they 
had  no  authority  themselves,  and  consequently 
could  not  transmit  it  to  their  successors. 

In  treating  this  question,  Mr.  B.  labours,  first, 
to  show  that  ordination  and  ministerial  authority 
in  the  Catholic  church  is,  to  use  his  favourite  ex- 
pression, a  "figment,"  and  then  he  contends  that  the 


308 


Reformers  in  their  suspension  and  excommunica- 
tion, could  not  be  deprived  of  this  same  '  figment,' 
and  thus  proves  that  Presbyterian  ministers  are 
something  more  than  mere  laymen !  !  On  this 
point  I  give  him  over  to  the  rigid  logic  of  Drs.  Bow- 
den,  Cooke,  Brittan,and  others,  who,  whilst  they 
vindicate  Catholic  ordination  on  the  one  side, 
prove  to  a  demonstration  on  the  other,  that  Pres- 
byterian ordination  is  a  "  figment"  indeed. 
"Where  there  is  no  Episcopal  ordination,"  says 
Dodwell,  "  there  is  no  ministry  ;  no  sacrament  ; 
NO  church.  Men  are  out  of  the  covenant  of  Grace, 
and  hope  of  salvation.''''  — 

5th  Question.  The  fifth  question  appertains 
as  a  corollary  to  the  solution  of  the  fourth. 
Since  it  is  manifest,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the 
first  Reformers  had  received  no  "new  ministerial 
authority"  it  follows  that  the  original  deficiency 
has  not  been  supplied  to  their  successors  at  any 
subsequent  period.  Consequently,  the  right  by 
which  the  Protestant  clergy,  exercise  the  minis- 
try is  merely  an  assumption  founded  on  a  human 
origin,  but  not  derived  from  God,  by  any  visible 
order  of  derivation.  The  ordinary  mission  and 
authority  were  cut  off  by  their  defection  from  the 
Catholic  church  ;  and  there  were  no  extraordi- 
nary mission  and  authority  ;  for  these  are  known 
only  by  the  evidence  of  miracles,  to  which  the 
Reformers,  very  wisely,  never  pretended. 

Mr.  B.  unable  to  answer,  in  a  satisfactory  man- 
ner, these  five  questions,  is  powerful  in,his  crimi- 
nations against  Catholicity.  He  sees  nothing 
but  sects  in  the  Catholic  church;  yet  when  I 
called  upon  him  to  show  so  much  as  two  Catho- 
lics in  the  whole  world,  professing  a  different  be- 
lief on  any  article  of  faith ;  he  could  not  find 
them.  Throughout  the  universe,  Catholics  are 
as  united  in  their  faith,  as  if  they  dwelt  under  the 
same  roof.  The  distinction  between  faith,  opi- 
nions, and  mere  local  customs,  has  been  pointed 
out. 

Towards  the  close  of  his  letter,  he  makes  an 
allusion  to  the  "table  of  sins,"  and  whilst  he 
pretends  that  no  parent  should  permit  his  child 
to  read  it,  he  seems  to  forget  that  there  are  pas- 
sages in  the  Bible  which,  on  his  own  principle,  it 
is  quite  as  improper  for  children  to  read,  or  hear, 
or  understand. 

The  last  flourish  of  his  letter  is  on  the  "ef- 
fects OF  THE  REFORMATION."       Hs  SPiVS,   "  W6  are 

indebted  to  the  Reformation,  under  God,  for  the 
rights  of  conscience,  for  civil  liberty,  for  the  re- 
vival of  letters  in  chief  part,  and  for  the  circula- 
tion of  the  Bible,  for  the  virtue  and  piety  of  the 
people,  and  the  eternal  salvation  of  innumerable 
souls."  All  this  is  popular  declamation,  most  of 
it  untrue,  and  contradicted  by  learned  Protestants 
themselves.  The  "  salvation  of  souls,"  ascribed 
to  the  Reformation  is  the  only  thing  worth  refuta- 
tion. Mr.  Haldane,  a  Protestant,  in  his  Second 
Review  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 
represents  the  Protestants,  not  only  of  Germany, 
but  Sweden,  Norway,  Finland,  Prussia,  Hungary, 
Holland  and  France,  as  consisting  almost  entirely 
ef  Arians,  Socinians,  Neologists,  Rationalists  and 


I  Deists.  Does  this,  I  would  ask  Mr.  B.,  look  like 
"  the  salvation  of  innumerable  souls  W  The  Edi- 
tor of  the  Presbyterian  corroborates  the  above  posi- 
tion by  telling  us  that  the  mother  churches  of  Cal- 
vinism in  Geneva  are  sinking  into  "  Atheism." 
The  Protestant  Brandt,  in  his  History  of  the  Re- 
formation, says  in  reference  to  morals-..-that 
"  vice,  persecution,  hatred,  envy,  and  self-love, 
have  prevailed  among  them,  (the  Reformed;)  that 
every  body  accommodates  the  word  of  God  to  his 


un  ma/c- 
,  vol.  i. 

i    of  in- 


own  .prejudices /  and  has  a  gospel  of  his  own  mak- 
ing."  (Roache's  Abridgment 
p.  3.)  Does  this  look  like  the  "  salvation  of  in- 
numerable souls'?"  But  I  have  already  given  the 
testimony  of  the  Reformers  themselves  to  prove 
that  morals  deteriorated  by  the  Reform. 

Mr.  B.  has  repeatedly  made  reference  to  those 
portions  of  the  Holy  Scripture  which  Protestants 
call  Apocryphal.  Now,  in  my  letter  No.  13,  I 
showed  by  unanswered  proof  and  testimony,  that 
the  objections  raised  by  Protestants  to  those  books, 
are  equally  strong  against  all  the  deutero-canoni- 
cal  books.  Let  him  take,  and  refute  those  argu- 
ments. 

With  regard  to  the  charge  which  he  renews  of 
SUPPRESSING  THE  SECOND  COMMAND- 
MENT, (as  Protestants  divide  the  decalogue)  I 
have  simply  to  reply  that  it  is  false  and  unfound- 
ed. There  is  only  one  copy  of  the  catechism  (and 
this  is  not  in  general  use)  in  which  it  is  not  ex- 
pressly and  fully  stated.     He  denies  that  it  is  in 

the    "  CATECHISM  OF  THE   COUNCIL  OF  TRENT,"    and 

calls  for  the  page.  Let  him  read  page  332,  and 
he  will  learn  the  truth  of  a  fact  which  he  has  de- 
nied. But  let  the  candid  acknowledgement  of 
learned  and  eminent  Protestants  reprove  the  igno- 
rance or  malice  that  prefers  such  a  charge. 

Doctor  Heber,  in  his  Bampton  Lectures,  says, 
"  We  ourselves  are  not  altogether  guiltless  of 
falsely  imputing  to  the  Catholics,  in  their  public 
formularies,  the  systematic  omission  of  that  com- 
mandment which  we  make  the  second  in  the  de- 
calogue"..This  accusation  has  been  brought  for- 
ward by  some  who  ought  to  have  known  better.'1'' 

Dr.  Parr  says,  "  I  should  be  ashamed  of  urging 
against  them  any  false  accusation  of  disingenuous 
omission,  or  unauthorized  arrangement  of  the  de- 
calogue." (Dr.  Parr's  Character  of  C.  J.  Fox, 
vol.  ii.  p.  129.) 

I  have  now  done — and  I  submit  it  to  the  reader 
whether  my  opponent  has  not  utterly  failed  to  prove 
either  "  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,"  or  "  the  Pro- 
testant." He  has  indeed  urged  against  the  Catho- 
lic Church  the  misrepresentations  of  three  hundred 
years,  wielded  with  all  the  force  which  ignorance 
of,  and  prejudice  against  our  real  doctrines  could 
impart.  But  what  has  he  done  besides  1  Even  in 
this,  has  he  ever  planted  his  foot  in  a  fixed  posi- 
tion, from  which  he  has  not  been  driven  by  the 
force,  not  of  assertion,  but  of  faets,  authorities, 
and  argument?  Even  in  point  of  literary  courtesy 
and  polite  language,  I  do  not  shrink  from  the  can- 
did judgment  of  the  Protestant  reader  himself.  It 


309 


is  to  be  admitted,  that  when  he  quoted  authorities, 
which  are  untrue,  I  said  they  were  "untrue."  But 
for  this,  the  blame  belongs  to  him  and  not  to  me. 
For  the  rest,  Rev.  Sir,  with  all  good  wishes  for  your 
better  knowledge  of  the  holy,  but  calumniated  re- 


ligion, which  you  have  assailed,  as  well  as  for 
your  happiness, 

I  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  HUGHES. 


3  V 


CONTROVERSY 


36. 


Is  the  ProiesSasit  Rellgiaaa  the  Religion  ©F  CSii'ist? 


W.  L.  M'CALLA  to  MR.  JOHN  HUGHES. 


Sir,— My  appointment  to  the  duty  of  address- 1 
ing  you  on  the  present  occasion,  and  the  reasons 
of  that  appointment,  may  be  seen  in  the  corres- 
pondence which  forms  an  appendix  to  this  letter.  | 
By  that  you  will  see  that  I  do  not  come  forvyard 
to  engage  formally  in  the  merits  of  the  question : 
this  fs  not  required  either  by  my  own  wishes  or 
the  necessity  of  the  case.  It  is,  however,  within 
my  province,  to  notice  your  abundant  personali- 
ties, several  of  which  arc  in  your  appended  letter 
of  September  23.  (No.  5.)  In  these  flings  at  your 
opponent,  you  intimate  his  incompetency,  his  mis- 
management, and  his  retreat.  To  the  last  or  these 
items  it  is  convenient  to  pay  the  first  attention. 

I.    His  retreat.     Your   letter   of  September 
23d  says,  '  But  you  must  not  deprive  me  of  my 
rio-ht  to  return   the  arrow  which  you   shoot — m 
recreating:     This  is  already  the  talk  among  your 
people  in  the  city.     So  it  appears  that  you  are 
now  winding  your  horn  of  triumph  ;    and  are  pre- 
paring to  inform   the  people  of  America  that  you 
have  won  the  day  :  the  people  of  England,  Scot- 
land, and  Ireland  are  to  be  informed  that  Protes- 
antism  has  fallen  in  their  land  of  promise  :   Papal 
Europe  must  be  told  that  the  champion  ol  liberty  j 
has  been  beaten  on  his  own  soil  :  and  especially  , 
the   banks   of  the  Tiber  must  thunder  with   the 
report  that  the  renowned  Mr.  Hughes  has  done  | 
his  Master's  work,  and  now  claims  the  promotion  j 
due  to  such  unparalleled  services.     Popish  victo- 
ries  are  often  like  Popish  miracles,  well  attested 
by  Popish  priests,  but  not  very  certain  after  all. 
Let  the  facts  be  fairly  told.     A  Romanist  of  Bal-  , 
timore   wrote   strictures   on    'Father    Clement.   \ 
He  had  them  transmitted  to  your  opponent  for  a 
written  answer,  which  'was,  in   some  sort,  tn-  : 
umphantly  demanded  as  impossible.'     \  our  op- 
ponent replies,   '  It   appears  indeed  our  duty  to 
take  up  the  challenge.'     But  he  expects  protract- 
ed opposition  ;    and  he  requests  that  it  may  come 
'  from  some  accredited  respondent,   not    from   one 
whose  defence  may  be  disclaimed,  after  the  trou- 
ble of  an  extended  discussion  has  been  gone  into. 
He  refers  to  your  '  priests  and  bishops,'  and  says, 
'  we  are  willing  to  meet  any  of  them,  on  the  broad 
field  of  this  important  and  vital  discussion ;  and 
hereby  make  this  disposition  known.'      In  your 
letter  of  October  3d,  1832,  you  represent  this  as 


the  real  challenge,  and  say  'Now,  Sir,  I  am 
equally  ready  to  accept  this  challenge.'  You 
then  promise  to  be  'accommodating  as  to  the 
time,  place,  manner,  and  circumstance  of  bringing: 
this  topic  fairly  before  the  public'  This  same 
promise  of  accommodation  as  to  time  and  place  you 
lately  renewed  in  your  letter  of  August  1,  1833. 
You  there  say  to  your  opponent  "  You  will  have 
it  in  your  power  to  fix  the  '  limitation'  when  and 
where  you  may  deem  it  convenient."  As  to  the 
'where,''  the  ' place,  manner,  and  circumstance,' 
your  opponent  has  hitherto  been  the  accommo- 
dating and  not  the  accommodated  party.  In  con- 
formity with  your  wish,  and  in  opposition  to  his 
own,  he  has  continued  the  contest  in  the  press. 
But  the  time  has  come,  of  which  he  informed  you 
from  the  beginning,  when  circumstances  imperi- 
ously require  that  he  should  claim  your  solemn 
written  agreement.  He  now  invites  an  alteration 
of  the  'where,''  the  'place,  manner,  and  circumstance,'' 
from  the  press  to  the  rostrum.  Who  is  it  that  re- 
j  treats  from  this  manly  proposal  1  If  then  you  are 
j  afraid  to  fulfil  your  repeated  promise  to  accommo- 
date him  in  this  respect,  he  claims  your  promise 
I  as  to  the  '  wjAe«,'  '  the  time.'  _ 

In  his  letter  of  November  7,  1832,  he  stipula- 
ted '  that  if  either  party  was  hindered  by  sickness 
or  inevitable  calls  to  be  absent,  the  discussion 
shall,  for  the  time,  upon  due  notice  being  given, 
be  suspended.'  In  his  letter  of  January  5,  1833, 
he  says  to  you,  '  While  mine  is  the  life  of  a 
traveller,  yours  is  one  of  sanctuary  quietude  and 
literary  leisure.'  'In  the  event  of  inevitable  in- 
terruptions I  shall  claim  the  indulgence  mention- 
ed in  a  former  letter,  of  a  temporary  suspension  of 
the  discussion.'  Here  follows  your  memorable 
answer  of  Jan.  21st,  viz.  "  You  take  great  pains 
to  show  in  all  your  letters  how  much  you  have  to 
do,  and  how  much  leisure  '  sanctuary  quietude 
remains  on  my  hands;  intimating  thereby  the 
advantages  which  my  situation  gives  me  over 
vou  in  the  conducting  of  this  Controversy.  Be 
assured,  Rev.  Sir,  that  if  I  thought  the  public 
could  be  interested  in  the  detail  of  my  avocations, 
I  also  could  make  out  a  tolerable  list  of  duties  ; 
enough  perhaps  to  turn  the  scales  of  comparison. 
But  to  make  your  mind  easy  on  the  subject  oj  your 
official  occupations,  I  beg  to  state  that  I  am  pre- 


:ii»3 


pared,  if  God  give  me  health,  to  sustain  the  Ca- 
tholic argument  against  any  or  all  the  cler- 
gymen    OF     THE     SYNOD     OR     GENERAL     ASSEMBLY, 

provided  he  or  they  write  with  your  signature  and 
adhere  to  the  rules.  I  make  this  remark  not  by 
Way  of  boasting,  but  because  you  allude  to,  and 
dwell  as  I  think,  too  emphatically  on  the  multi- 
udeofyour  official  duties" 

In  his  late  letters  published  in  this  paper,  your 
opponent  again  suggests  to  you  the  unwelcome 
subject  of  his  official  occupations  ;  and  informs 
you  that  this  too  emphatical  multitude  of  his 
official  duties  calls  him  away  for  a  season.  You 
had  given  him  several  promises  to  make  his  mind 
easy  on  this  subject ;  and  the  period  has  arrived 
when  he  must  claim  the  fulfilment  of  one  of  them. 
He  wishes  you  to  ascend  the  rostrum  like  a  man. 
You  say,  No.  Then  he  asks  a  temporary  sus- 
pension of  the  Controversy  during  his  necessary 
absence  :  and  he  wishes  this  suspension  to  take 
effect  according  to  his  views  of  fair  play,  after  the 
parties  have  written  an  equal  number  of  letters. 
You  say,  No,  here  also,  and  demand  for  yourself 
the  last  as  well  as  the  first  letter.  He  then  re- 
sorts to  your  third  proposal,  published  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  making  his  mind  easy  on  this 
very  subject.  He  does  not  ask  that  '  all  the  cler- 
gymen of  the  Synod  or  General  Assembly'  may 
act  until  his  return,  although  your  empty  flourish 
of  trumpets  defied  their  whole  array:  he  only 
asks  to  leave  a  single  representative  of  their  body, 
during  his  absence.  But  to  this  also  you  refuse 
your  assent.  Ts  this  intended  as  a  practical  com- 
ment upon  the  doctrine  of  your  church,  that  faith 
is  not  to  be  kept  with  heretics  ?  You  promise  to 
be  accommodating  to  your  opponent,  and  to  set 
his  mind  at  ease  ;  and  then  refuse  every  promised 
accommodation,  and  stigmatize  him  as  a  '■retreat- 
ing' combatant.  If  this  be  your  way  of  inter- 
preting actions,  I  doubt  your  infallibility  in  the 
interpretation  of  words.  Your  opponent  offers 
you  battle  fairly  in  any  of  three  practicable  ways. 
You  decline  the  whole  of  them,  and  declare  that 
he  is  '  retreating.''  This  very  much  resembles 
the  way  in  which  Bonaparte  retreated  from  your 
Master  the  Pope. 

Tn  this  course  of  yours  you  would  have  us  to 
believe  that  you  are  not  at  all  afraid  of  your  oppo- 
nent, but  only  of  '  an  idle,  promiscuous,  curious 
multitude.'  But  the  same  sort  of  people  read 
the  papers,  and  the  readers  are  far  more  numer- 
ous than  the  hearers  could  be.  And  which  is 
the  worst,  a  theological  gladiator  on  the  stage,  or 
in  the  press  ?  Your  brethren  in  Europe  have  not 
learned  your  distinctions;  and  your  perceptions 
would  have  been  somewhat  brightened,  if  your 
opponent  had  been  so  infatuated  as  to  offer  you 
a  written  controversy  to  be  read  only  '  in  the 
presence  of  twelve  enlightened  gentlemen,  nei- 
ther Catholics  nor  Presbyterians  !  !'  If  we  may 
believe  your  fellow-communicants  the  Belgians, 
they  had  two-thirds  of  all  the  heroism  in  the 
world.  One  of  their  priests  was  enough  to  de- 
feat the  whole  Synod  of  Holland.  How  then  are 
we  to  account  for  the  fact  that  they  would  not 
wait  to  look  a  single  Dutchman  in   the  face? 


Was  it  for  th&  want  of  '  twelve  enlightened  gen^ 
tlemen,  neither  Catholics  nor  Presbyterians?'  or 
was  it  from  an  unconquerable  aversion  to  the  vul- 
gar profession  of  a  military  '  gladiator.'  How- 
ever, they  could  easily  find  a  priest  who  would 
swear  infallibly  that  it  was  the  Dutch  who  were 
'  retreating.' 

II.      THE     INCOMPETENCY     OF      YOUR     OPPONENT. 

As  to  your  own  competency  you  are  happily  di- 
vested of  all  doubts  and  fears.  The  whole  con- 
cern of  your  benevolent  heart  appears  to  be  about 
the  injury  which  must  result  to  our  cause,  from 
the  feebleness  of  our  advocate.  This  is  almost 
the  only  thing-  in  which  you  and  he  think  alike  ; 
for  he  has  a  high  opinion  of  your  talents,  and  a 
poor  opinion  of  his  own.  Your  skill  is  a  subject 
on  which  the  whole  community  agrees  with  you. 
You  are  the  Goliah  of  your  party.  Protestants 
rejoice  that  it  is  so.  You  have  long  and  deeply 
studied  the  Popish  controversy.  Yet  Protestants 
see,  and  you  feel,  that  you  have  met  with  your 
David.  This  is  at  the  bottom  of  all  your  multi- 
plied, persevering,  and  bitter  personalities.  If 
he  be  the  feeble  creature  which  you  vainly  pre- 
tend to  think  him,  why  do  you  not  meet  him  on 
the  stage,  and  finish  him  at  once,  and  with  him 
prostrate  that  host  whose  accredited  champion  he 
is  1  If  his  arm  be  so  puny,  why  do  you  let  his 
horse's  hoofs  trample  you  down  in  the  press,  and 
at  the  Athenaeum,  your  own  chosen  scenes  of  con- 
flict? 

When  speaking  of  your  opponent  in  your  last 
letter,  as  borrowing  an  'artifice  of  Mr.  Faber,' 
you  speak  sarcastically  of  them  both,  as  '  edu- 
cated ministers,'  by  whose  'solecisms'  'even  the 
purity  of  our  language  must  be  sacrificed.' 
These  remarks  are  occasioned  by  their  use  of  the 
word  '■literal,''  in  connexion  with  lJlesh  and  blood.'' 
The  Bishop  of  Aire  has  made  them  before  you, 
and  this  may  be  the  reason  of  your  accusing  your 
opponent  of  borrowing  from  Faber.  I  think  you 
told  me  that  you  were  an  Irishman  ;  and  you 
know  that  the  Bishop  of  Aire  was  a  Frenchman. 
I  mean  no  reflection  against  either  country,  for  I 
am  connected  with  both  ;  but  permit  me  to  ex- 
press my  satisfaction  at  discovering  that  Popery 
carries  with  it  such  an  intellectual  charm,  that  it 
perfectly  qualifies  a  Frenchman  and  an  Irishman, 
for  instructing  eminent  Englishmen  and  Ameri- 
cans in  the  English  language.  Their  indocility 
and  the  consequent  scoldings  which  they  get 
from  their  kind  preceptors,  remind  me  of  a  simi- 
lar affair  recorded  by  your  countrywoman,  Miss 
Edgeworth,  concerning  the  difficulties  which  a 
Welsh  teacher  had  to  encounter  in  teaching  a 
little  Irish  boy  the  English  language.  He  used 
to  say,  '  you  little  Irish  p/ocket,  unit  I  never  teach 
you  the  Enklish  lankwitch  P 

Was  Dr.  Johnson  for  sacrificing  the  purity  of 
our  language,  when  he  said  that  the  word  literal 
meant  'according  to  the  primitive  meaning,  not 
figurative  ?'  You  say  that  '  literal  flesh?  and 
'■literal  blood''  are  'solecisms.'  You  say  that 
"  the  word  '■literal'  cannot  be  applied  to  a  material 
object.''''  You  say  "  we  never  hear  of  a  '  UteraV 
house,  a  '  UteraV  loaf  of  bread,  or  a  '  UteraV  stage- 


:n:s 


Coach  drawn  by  lHteraV  horses."  And  you  affirm 
that  to  use  the  word  in  such  a  manner  is  to  '  bar- 
barize the  language. '  It  is  remarkable  that 
Hammond  should  use  this  word  in  connexion 
with  architectural  establishments,  and  that  Dr. 
Johnson  should  quote  that  instance  to  prove  the 
meaning'  given  above.  With  such  authority  per- 
mit me  to  venture  a  few  references  which  your 
remarks  have  suggested. 

You  will  probably  agree  with  Dr.  Johnson  that 
the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  '  house'  is  '  a 
place  of  human  abode.'1  When  the  Doway  Bible 
speaks  of  'the  house  of  the  heron,'  [stork;  Ps. 
104.]  does  it  mean  '  a  place  of  human  abode  ?' 
Then  we  say  that  the  word  is  used  in  a  figurative 
sense.  When  your  Breviary  asserts  the  transi- 
tion of  the  house  of  Loretto  from  Palestine  to 
the  Papa]  States,  and  embodies  this  falsehood  in 
a  direct  address  to  the  Deity,  does  it  mean  that  a 
bird's  nest  was  so  translated  ?  No,  the  word  house 
is  *  net  figurative*  there,  but  is  intended  '■according 
to  the  primitive  meaning.''  Then  according  to  Dr. 
Johnson,  it  is  a  '  literal''  house. 

In  the  Gth  chapter  of  the  Apocalypse,  we  read 
of  three  horses,  a  red,  a  black,  and  a  pale  horse. 
The  Doway  translators  declare  that  these  signify 
war,  famine,  and  pestilence.  Then  they  are  figu- 
rative horses.  But  your  Breviary  tells  us  that 
Pope  St.  John,  (this  is  not  the  female  Pope  Joan) 
borrowed  a  horse  of  a  noble  lady,  to  ride  to  Co- 
rinth. The  animal  seems  to  have  had  as  much 
sagacity  as  Balaam's  ass  :  for  he  was  so  elated 
with  the  honour  of  being  ridden  by  bis  Holiness, 
that  he  would  never  permit  his  mistress  to  ride 
him  again  ;  and  so  he  had  to  be  given  to  the 
Pope.  Now  you  would  not  say  that  this  horse 
signifies  either  ivar,  famine,  or  pestilence,  but 
'  a  neighing  steed.'  The  word  is  evidently  used 
'  according"  to  its  primitive  meaning,  not  figura- 
tive.' Then,  according  to  Dr.  Johnson  it  is  a 
'  literal''  horse ,-  and  might  assist  in  drawing  a 
'literal  stage-coach,'  if  it  had  not  been  disquali- 
fied by  turning  Jesuit  on  the  road  to  Corinth. 

When  the  spies  returned  from  Canaan,  ten  of 
them  terrified  the  congregation  with  an  account, 
of  the  giants,  so  that  they  became  unruly.  But 
Joshua  and  Caleb  said,  '  Rebel  not  ye  against  the 
Lord,  neither  fear  ye  the  people  of  the  land,  for 
they  are  bread  for  us;'  that  is,  they  shall  ulti- 
mately be  the  means  of  our  support  instead  of  our 
destruction.  This,  then,  is  a  figurative  Use  of  the 
word  bread.  But  your  Breviary  uses  the  word  in 
another  sense,  when  it  tells  us  that  Frances,  a  Ro- 
man widow,  had  a  few  pieces  of  bread,  hardly 
enough  to  refresh  three  sisters,  but  in  answer  to 
her  prayers,  they  were  so  multiplied  as  to  afford 
an  ample  repast  to  fifteen  nuns,  and  fill  a  basket 
with  the  fragments.  Now  it  is  evident  that  the 
bread  in  this  case  is  very  different  from  that, men- 
tioned by  Joshua,  unless  you  would  suppose  that 
Frances  furnished  the  fifteen  nuns  with  giants 
apiece,  which  would  hardly  be  recorded  in  the 
Breviary ;  though  I  confess  there  is  too  great  a 
leaning  that  way  in  the  marvellous  account  of  St. 
Scholastica.  The  food  of  St.  Frances,  then,  must 
he  bread  '  according  to  the  primitive  meaning, -\  that 


is,  literal  bread.  That  food  which  fell  about  the 
camp  of  Israel,  was  literal  manna,-  Christ  was  the 
figurative  or  spiritual  manna.  The  smitten  rock 
in  the  wilderness  was  a  literal  rock,  but  '  that  rock 
was  Christ,1  figuratively  or  spiritually.  His  body 
had  literal  flash  and  blood,-  but  the  bread  and  wine 
are  his  flesh  and  blood  figuratively  or  spiritually. 
'  The  letter  and  circumcision''  is  an  expression  which 
is  perfectly  rendered  in  our  idiom  by  '■literal  cir- 
cumcision,,'' and  the  circumcision  of  the  heart  means 
spiritual  circumcision,-  (Rom.  ii.  27,  29.  compare 
2  Cor.  iii.  6.  John  vi.  63.)  which  is  effected  not 
by  transubstantiation,  but  by  regeneration. 

Although  your  criticisms  on  this  subject  are 
weak  and  wide  of  the  mark,  they  are  far  from 
giving  evidence  of  ignorance  or  pedantry.  They 
are  only  what  military  men  would  call  a  demon- 
stration, an  attempt  to  make  a  formidable  display 
with  slender  means,  and  thus  to  make  the  best  of 
a  bad  cause.  And  has  not  this  something  to  do 
with  your  unbecoming  attempts  to  depreciate  your 
opponent's  talents  and  standing1?  If  you  felt  a  con- 
scious ascendency  in  the  argument,  would  you  not 
take  a  natural  pleasure  in  allowing  him  all  due 
credit  for  character  and  talents'?  This  is  a  plea- 
sure which  he  and  his  friends  have  long  enjoyed 
in  relation  to  you;  for  men  of  judgment  who  read 
both  sides  must  see  that  he  has  the  windward  of 
you.  If  he  could  have  continued  with  us,  there 
would  have  been  no  need  of  a  substitute.  I  am 
not  anxious  to  fill  up  the  time  during  his  absence. 
If  now  you  will  only  be  more  moderate  against 
the  Bible,  and  more  generous  towards  an  absent 
antagonist,  you  may  fill  up  your  whole  space  with 
declamation,  and  if  you  please,  scurrility,  against 
his  substitute,  without  probably  being  answered. 
This  is  a  way  in  which  you  may  possibly  obtain 
your  much  desired  last  letter,  after  all.  But  I 
make  no  absolute  promise. 

With  the  subject  which  we  have  just  dismissed, 
you  connect  a  remark  which  is  often  repeated  in 
substance.  It  is  that  your  opponent  in  speaking 
of  literal  flesh  and  blood,  uses  artifice  'in  order  to 
make  the  doctrine  appear  shocking  to  the  misds 
of  Protestants.'  Now,  Sir,  it  is  a  fact  which  can 
be  proved  from  your  standards,  and  Ave  use  no  ar- 
tifice in  saying  so,  that  your  church  does  teach  the 
eating  of  literal  flesh  and  blood  in  the  mass.  If 
this  be  true,  transubstantiation  is  a  shocking  doc- 
trine; but  if  it  be  not  true,  transubstantiation  is 
nonsense.  But  the  merits  of  the  question  I  leave 
for  one  whose  weight  you  have  felt;  and  proceed 
to  remark  that  no  one  can  show  a  greater  readiness 
than  yourself  in  using  any  artifice,  lawful  or  un- 
lawful, to  make  an  impression.  You  soon  took 
an  opportunity  to  let  the  followers  of  Miss  Frances 
Wright  know  that  you  were  for  the  Sabbatical 
transportation  of  the  mail.  I  trust,  however,  that 
the  tone  of  public  morals  is  far  remote,  which 
would  allow  you  and  your  clerical  brethren  to  at- 
tend Sabbatical  bull-baitings  and  cock-fightings  as 
they  do  in  Popish  countries.  The  only  hope,  (and 
that  is  a  mere  shadow)  which  you  have  that  any 
of  our  community  can  be  saved  out  of  your  church, 
is  based  upon  their  invincible  ignorance,-  and  yet, 
ad  captandum  valgus,  how  many  compliments  you 


311 


can  pay  to  the  enlightened  judgment  of  these  in- 
vincible ignoramuses!  Yet  you  are  the  man  to 
charge  artifice  upon  a  neighbour. 

III.  The  mismanagement  ov  your  opponent. — 
On  this  subject  you  bring  many  complaints;  such 
as  uncourteous  treatment,  wandering  from  the 
point,  spurious  authorities,  vague  quotations,  per- 
versions, corruptions,  and  falsehoods. 

1.  Uncourteous  treatment. — It  is  mournful  and 
ludicrous  to  hear  your  complaints  of  his  omitting 
the 'Reverend' before  the  'Sir;'  and  his  calling 
your  society  by  such  names  as  Romanists  arid 
Papists,  instead  of  those  names  by  which  you  ar- 
rogate to  yourselves  an  exclusive  title  to  Chris- 
tianity. Did  he  undertake  this  Controversy  to 
prove  that  you  were  the  only  Christians!  or  does 
he  not  rather  show  that  you  are  Antichrist!  Does 
either  Christian  consistency  or  Christian  courtesy 
bind  us  to  call  those  Holy  and  Reverend  whom 
the  Bible  declares  to  be  the  man  of  sin  and  son  of 
perdition!  How  would  it  commend  your  own  po- 
liteness to  address  your  opponent  in  the  following 
manner!  '  Rev.  Sir;  you  are  not  reverend,  either 
in  character  or  office;  for  you  are  no  Christian  nor 
Christian  minister;  but  a  fool,  a  knave,  and  a 
liar.'  Yet  this  is  a  plain  compendious  translation 
of  a  great  portion  of  your  letters.  To  such  po- 
liteness may  I  ever  be  a  stranger! 

2.  Wandering  from  the  point. — The  man  who 
does  this  in  a  controversy  like  yours,  does  it  in  his 
own  time,  in  his  own  place,  and  consequently  at 
his  own  expense.  Accordingly  when  you  lately 
spent  a  great  part  of  a  letter  in  a  review  of  Bishop 
Onderdonk,  you  were  all  the  while  drifting  to- 
wards a  reef:  and  so  you  are  when  you  spend  so 
much  of  your  time  in  peevish  railing  against  an 
opponent  who  is  alternately  tearing  your  rigging 
and  boring  your  hull.  It  is  evident  that  while 
you  are  perpetually  complaining  of  his  wandering 
i'rom  the  point,  your  greatest  desire  is  that  he 
would  wander  from  the  point;  and  your  ill  hu- 
mour arises  from  his  being  so  true  a  marksman. 
When  he  talks  of  your  wandering,  he  does  it  with 
better  temper,  because  he  sees  that  you  do  wan- 
der, and  that  you  suffer  for  it. 

There  is  a  better  and  there  is  a  worse  way  of 
proposing  the  same  general  subject  for  discus- 
sion. 1  should  like  the  following  question,  viz. 
'The  Society  calling  itself  the  Holy  Mother 
church,  the  Roman  Catholic  Apostolical  church — 
Is  their  religion  exclusively,  the  religion  which 
Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  now  approves!'  The 
substance  of  this  question  was  proposed  to  you 
by  your  opponent.  You  declined  it.  I  saw  your 
reason.  The  Protestant  religion  was  then  made 
the  subject  of  discussion.  I  saw  your  mistake. 
You  could  not  have  mustered  courage  to  under- 
take the  controversy,  if  you  had  been  aware  that 
the  question  allowed  your  opponent  to  drag  out 
to  the  light  the  loathsome  abominations  of  your 
Popes  and  Cardinals,  your  Inquisitors  and  Jesu- 
its, your  Monks  and  Nuns.  You  are  not  willing 
for  Popery  to  be  the  subject  of  debate,  and  when 
Protestantism  is  made  the  subject,  you  are  not 
willing  that  it  should  protest  against  Popery ; 
though    that   is   the   very    origin    of  the   name. 


Your  intention  was,  and  your  demand  still  is, 
that  you  may  shoot  at  us  continually,  and  we 
may  exercise  ourselves  in  dodging.  To  fire  back 
is  out  of  order!  This  is  pretty  much  the  sort  of 
fighting  in  Popish  countries  :  but  ours  is  not  the 
latitude  for  it. 

Suppose  that  an  Infidel  were  to  propose  mak- 
ing Revelation  the  subject  of  debate.  You  would 
of  course  refuse  ;  for  Popish  revelations  cansot 
bear  much  handling.  You  agree  at  last  to  make 
Infidelity  the  subject  of  discussion.  But  what  is 
Infidelity  except  a  disbelief  of  revelation,  and  pro- 
testing against  it!  When  you  see  this,  and  feel 
it  too,  does  it  not  appear  very  dignified  to  be  con- 
stantly complaining  that  he  is  off' the  subject. 

3.  Spurious  authors.  You  disown  T/ruanus  and 
du  Pin  the  Popish  historians,  and  Pascal,  the 
great  Jansenist,  and  censure  your  opponent  for 
quoting  them  in  their  true  character;  while  you 
strongly  urge  attention  to  Heylin,  as  a  Protestant 
historian,  though  you  know  him  to  have  been  a 
Crypto-Papist.  You  are  always  speaking  of 
Unitarians  as  Protestants,  though  you  know  that 
they  were  opposed  to  the  Protestant  Reformation, 
and  were  rejected  by  the  Protestant  Reformers ; 
and  although  you  know  that  their  infidel  princi- 
ples were  once  the  creed  of  your  infallible  and 
immutable  church  ;  and  are  now  the  creed  of 
many  of  its  officers.  While  your  church  quotes 
the  forged  Decretals,  and  Liturgies,  and  Luther's 
Table  talk,  you  can  hardly  contain  your  displeas- 
ure at  the  mention  of  the  well  authenticated 
Secrela  Monita  of  the  Jesuits. 

4.  Vague  quotations.  You  seem  to  think  it  de- 
sirable that  your  opponent  should  make  such  dis- 
tinct and  intelligible  references  as  will  enable 
you  to  examine  his  extracts  in  their  connection. 
This  is  the  very  error  in  which  you  excel,  and 
which  he  has  in  vain  invited  you  to  correct.  If 
you  were  to  quit  your  vague  quotations,  you 
would  have  to  quit  talking  about  the  Reformers, 
or  talk  very  differently  from  what  you  do.  When 
your  vague  story  of  Martin  Luther's  indulgence 
to  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  was  published  in  Scot- 
land, it  was  believed,  until  a  definite  reference 
was  demanded  and  obtained  ;  after  which  it  was 
found  on  examination  to  be  no  indulgence  at  all  ; 
but  such  advice  as  Paul  has  given  in  such  cases. 
The  slander  was  then  met  with  the  indulgence 
offered  by  the  Pope  to  He.nry  VIII.  His  holiness 
was  too  much  afraid  of  the  Emperor  Charles  to 
allow  Henry  a  divorce,  but  by  way  of  compro- 
mise he  is  said  to  have  offered  him  permission  to 
have  two  wives.  Your  celebrated  Milner  who 
circulated  in  England  the  slander  against  Luther, 
made  an  abortive  effort  to  escape  the  odium  of 
the  Pope's  offer  to  the  king  of  England. 

5.  Corruptions  of  the  text.  In  your  letter  Septem- 
ber 23d,  1833,  you  say  to  your  opponent, — "  Nor 
will  the  public  be  at  a  loss  to  divine  your  mo- 
tives for  now  declining  that  mode,  [of  a  written 
controversy,]  as  it  must  he  evident,  that  in  an 
oral  discussion  you  would  have  the  opportunity 
of  quoting  authorities  in  a  manner  to  suit  your 
own  purpose,  when  it  would  not  be  in  the  power 
of  your  opponent  to  detect  and  expose  you,  as 


:ti» 


has  been  successfully  done  in  a  variety  of  in- 
stances.' 

In  answer  to  this  extract  I  would  say  that  you 
yourself  give  abundant  evidence  that  it  is  a  mere 
subterfuge.  When  you  made  a  pompous  charge 
of  corruption  against  your  opponent,  did  you  con- 
fine him  to  the  press  in  order  that  you  might  'de- 
tect and  expose'  him  1  No  :  In  Letter  17lh,  you 
loudly  challenged  him  to  meet  you  before  the 
General  Assembly.  When  you  boasted  that  you 
were  going  '  to  put  the  matter  to  rest,'  about  his 
quotations  of  Baronius,  did  you  confine  him  to 
the  p?,ess  in  order  to  '  expose'  him  1  No ;  in 
Letter  31st,  you  bring  out  his  letter  and  his  au- 
thor to  the  Athenaeum,  saying  :  "  The  public  will 
then  see  which  of  us  is  to  be  'exposed.'  "  And 
the  public  do  see  which  of  you  is  exposed. 
While  aiming  this  thrust  at  the  character  of  your 
opponent  in  the  face  of'  the  public,'  you  possibly 
forgot  your  scruples  against  acting  the  gladiator 
before  the  public  :  and  when  attempting  to  drag 
him  before  the  General  Assembly  and  '  the  pub- 
lic' of  Philadelphia,  you  forgot  that  both  the  one 
and  the  other  differed  much  from  your  indispens- 
able twelve  men,  who  should  be  neither  Catho- 
lics nor  Presbyterians.  Now  you  prudently  re- 
tire from  the  public  whose  inspection  you  in- 
vited. But,  (to  repeat  your  own  words,  in  the 
beginning  of  Letter  19th,)  '  Prudence,  we  are  told, 
is  the  better  part  of  valour.' 

From  the  beginning  of  this  Controversy  j'ou 
have  evidently  bent  your  whole  force  towards 
stigmatizing  your  opponent  for  pretended  false 
quotations.  Lest  we  should  be  at  a  loss  for  your 
motive,  you  cite  the  case  of  the  Popish  du  Perron, 
who  accused  his  countryman  du  Plessis  of  five 
hundred  false  quotations  ;  and  by  the  help  of  a 
Popish  king,  and  a  Popish  committee  of  examina- 
tion, and  Popish  management,  convicted  him  of 
nine  of  them ;  and  obtained  a  Cardinal's  hat  for 
his  smartness.  As  you  have  given  your  account 
of  this  affair,  permit  me  to  give  the  other  side  of 
the  question.  It  shall  be  the  substance  of  that 
statement,  which  was  '  printed  first,  in  French, 
by  the  authority  of  the  states  of  Holland  and  TVest- 
FriczlandJ' 

Du  Plessis  determined  in  earnest  to  storm  the 
citadel  of  Romish  traditions.  The  passages 
which  his  work  quoted  against  them  from  the 
Fathers  and  School-men  amounted  to  four  thou- 
sand. The  failure  of  France  in  all  its'attempts  to 
Tefute  it,  and  the  failure  of  Rome  even  to  attempt. 
an  answer,  though  promised,  greatly  promoted 
the  reputation  and  sale  of  the  book.  Loads  of 
Antichristian  slanders  were  vainly  published  ; 
numerous  accusations  of  false  quotations  were 
vainly  alleged  ;  until  in  conscious  integrity  and 
simplicity  of  heart  he  requested  an  examination 
and  comparison  of  his  work  with  the  authorities 
quoted.  He  requested  that  it  might  be  thorough- 
ly sifted  in  the  order  of  the  quotations,  that  he 
might  have  the  censure  due  for  errors,  and  the 
credit  due  for  those  which  were  correct.  This, 
however,  did  not  comport  with  the  royal  pleas- 
ure ;  for  this  was  to  be  done  by  royal  authority; 
and  as   the  apostate  Henry  was  suspected  of  in- 1 


sincerity  in  his  conversion  to  Popery,  he  deter- 
mined to  propitiate  the  Roman  Moloch  by  the 
sacrifice  of  a  faithful  servant. 

His  accuser,  du  Perron,  was  closeted  with  the 
king  all  day,  and  they  managed  to  compel  du 
Plessis  to  sit  up  the  whole  night  before  the  exa- 
mination, in  a  hasty  comparison  of  a  few  refer- 
ences which  they  designedly  kept  out  of  his  hands 
until  an  hour  before  midnight!  This,  however, 
was  hardly  worse  than  the  attempt  of  the  Right 
Reverend  du  Perron  the  next  day,  to  have  those 
references  first  taken  up  which  he  found  du  Plessis 
had  not  been  able  to  touch  for  want  of  time.  Some 
of  their  demands  he  was  determined  to  resist;  but 
he  was  at  last  informed  by  the  Chancellor  '  that 
the  king  was  resolved  to  know  the  truth  of  this 
matter;  that  whether  du  Plessis  Avere  present  or 
absent,  it  must  be  examined.'  This,  however,  is 
not  worse  than  the  fact  that  this  same  Chancellor 
had  designedly  withheld  from  du  Plessis  a  notice 
of  the  meeting,  though  he  had  sent  one  to  his  ac- 
cuser; so  that  it  was  evidently  his  intention  and 
wish  that  the  acoused  should  be  condemned  in  his 
absence:  and  not  improbably  it  was  to  insure  this 
project  that  the  meeting  was  held  at  Fontainbleu 
instead  of  Paris. 

The  express  engagement  of  du  Perron  was  'to 
show  Jive  hundred  enormous  falsities  in  du  Pies- 
sis'  book,  in  downright  number  and  luithout  hyper- 
hole.''  Instead  of  publishing  his  five  hundred  re- 
ferences, or  at  least  furnishing  the  accused  with 
a  copy  many  days,  weeks,  or  months  before  the 
examination,  they  were  concealed  between  the 
Right  Reverend  accuser  and  his  royal  accomplice, 
to  be  handed  out  at  their  pleasure,  in  such  a  man* 
ner  that  their  victim  could  not  know  where  they 
were  going  to  strike,  nor  have  more  time  for  de- 
fence than  they  were  pleased  to  allow  him.  '  He 
plainly  saw  that  after  they  had  made  an  effort 
upon  five  or  six  passages,  they  would  find  out  a 
way  to  break  off  the  conference,  so  to  fix  in  men's 
minds  a  like  opinion  of  the  rest.'  The  event  jus- 
tified his  suspicions.  By  the  time  his  arbitrary 
judges  had  condemned  nine  pretended  inaccura- 
cies, not  falsehoods,  his  long  fatigue  and  agita- 
tion, distress  and  loss  of  sleep,  operated  upon 
him,  as  similar  causes  did  upon  John  Huss  ia 
prison.  '  They  took  occasion  from  the  sickness 
of  du  Plessis  to  break  up  the  conference:  and  with' 
out  so  much  as  staying  till  his  departure,  the  com- 
missioners were  discharged  that  night,  to  the  end 
that  though  du  Plessis  had  recovered,  they  might 
have  had  an  excuse  ready  not  to  renew  it.'  'The 
wicked  flee  when  no  man  pursueth.'  Aubigne  en- 
deavoured to  resume  the  conference  in  vain.  After 
du  Plessis  had  retired  to  a  place  of  safety,  (a  mea- 
sure quite  necessary  in  a  Popish  government)  he 
successfully  defended  his  book,  and  exposed  the 
conduct  of  the  royal  cabal  which  had  attempted 
his  destruction. 

His  accuser,  the  Bishop  of  Evreux  was  the  se- 
cret counsellor  of  the  King,  who  appointed  the 
judges,  and  who,  with  his  still  more  zealous 
chancellor,  presided  at  the  investigation.  For 
the  decision  of  this  matter  he  appointed  five  com- 
missioners, a  majority  of  whom  were  professed 


niii 


Papists ;  and  one  of  them  a  physician  of  the 
King.  The  two  acting  Protestant  commissioners 
were  du  Fresne  Canaye,  and  Casauboii.  They 
had  been  selected  because  they  were  moderate 
men.  The  former  '  came  post  haste  to  court  on 
purpose  to  change  his  religion;  which  he  did  in 
a  little  time  after.'  The  latter,  '  du  Perron  had 
gained  by  his  artifices.'  He  had  promised  to 
change  his  religion;  but  'before  he  went  over 
into  England,  he  told  du  Perron,  that  he  could 
be  more  serviceable  to  him  in  gaining  that 
Prince,  if  he  continued  in  the  profession  of  the 
Reformed  religion,  than  after  he  had  quitted  it.' 
Leaving  the  King's  physician  out  of  the  question, 
it  is  asserted  that  'there  was  more  honesty  to  be 
hoped  for'  from  the  two  other  professed  Romish 
Commissioners,  (of  whom  Thuanus  was  one) 
than  from  the  two  professed  Protestants. 

In  such  hands  it  would  have  been  no  wonder 
if  he  had  been  '  unanimously  convicted,'  as  you 
say  he  was.  But  of  what  was  he  convicted  ] 
In  the  13th  Letter  you  use  the  word  'falsehoods.'' 
It  is  true  that  the  Bishop  promised  to  convict  him 
of  five  hundred  enormous  falsehoods  :  but  it  is 
also  true  that  after  his  secret  intercourse  with  the 
King,  his  Majesty  from  pretended  delicacy,  ex- 
punged the  words  from  the  charge,  and  forbade 
such  words  as  falsehood  to  be  used  in  the  deci- 
sion. Instead  of  the  charge  of  falsehood,  they 
used  such  cold  blooded  sarcasms  as  you  have 
tried  in  your  lastletter  ;  whereyou  charitably  say 
that  your  opponent, 'no  doubt,  copied  from  others, 
who  wrote  for  Protestants  only,  and  whose  false 
or  garbled  quotations  passed  unexposed  and  un- 
suspected.' This  had  the  double  effect  of  re- 
lieving da  Perron  from  undertaking  what  he 
could  not  prove,  and  of  farther  perplexing  du 
Flessis  with  having  to  answer  vague,  contemptu- 
ous, artful,  and  insidious  insinuations,  instead  of 
definite  charges. 

Thus  with  management  which  nothing  but  Po- 
pery can  compass,  they  made  provision  for  circu- 
lating through  the  world  a  report  of  five  hundred 
enormous  falsehoods  against  his  book,  when  in 
form  and  in  fact,  this  was  not  ultimately  alleged, 
tried,  proved,  or  awarded.  The  only  thing  really 
proved  against  him  was  the  seventh  item,  in 
which  it  was  found  that  he  had  misquoted  a  pas- 
sage of  Cyril,  by  taking  it  second-handed  from 
Crinitus,  a  Popish  Priest!  and  those  who  follow 
his  example  may  expect  to  fall  into  his  error. 
Even  this,  however,  is  a  folly  of  which  you  can- 
not accuse  your  opponent ;  for  instead  of  taking 
on  trust  your  very  imposing  quotation  from  Ter- 
tullian,  he  proved  that  your  mutilated  extract 
spoke  a  sentiment  the  very  opposite  of  the  origi- 
nal text.  In  falsely  charging  another  with  cor- 
ruptions which  you  grossly  practice  yourself, 
you  are  not  worse  than  your  boasted  champion 
the  Bishop  of  Evreux.  Da  Plessis  publicly  fas- 
tened upon  him  '  the  falsification  of  the  acts  of 
the  Conference  which  he  had  made  himself;  and 
that  he  did  both  alter  and  change  them  divers 
times  before  he  published  them:  insomuch  that 
after  he  had  shown  them  to  some  persons  at 
Lyons,  who  could  not  forbear  speaking,  he  tore 


them  to  make  others  which  he  set  forth.'  Fof 
this  conduct  he  obtained  a  Cardinal's  hat;  and 
for  similar  conduct  I  understand  you  are  to  re- 
ceive a  Bishop's  mitre.  This  is  the  high  way 
to  promotion  in  the  synagogue  of  Satan,  but  not 
in  the  holy  church  of  Christ. 

In  Letter  31st,  you  deny  that  Thuanus  who 
had  been  quoted  with  some  effect  against  you, 
was  a  '  Roman  Catholic  historian:'  yet  in  Let- 
ter 13th,  you  recognize  the  'Catholics'  appointed 
by  Henry  IV.  to  condemn  da  Plessis;  and  Thu- 
anus, the  Roman  Catholic  historian  was  one  of 
them.  You  tell  us  that  '  the  history  of  Thuanus 
has  been  condemned  at  Rome  by  two  public  de- 
crees:  the  one  of  November  9th,  1609  ;  the  other 
of  May  10th,  1757.'  Yes,  this  is  precisely  what 
we  learn,  and  what  you  learn  from  that  Prohibi- 
tory Index,  which,  in  your  last  letter  you  tell  us 
'  is  not  acknowledged'  in  '  France,  England,  Ire- 
land, and  our  own  country.'  It  seems  to  be  a 
spirit  which  a  Jesuit  may  exorcise  and  conjure 
up  again  at  his  pleasure.  You  complain  that  he 
was  'the  implacable  enemy  of  the  Jesuits.'  To 
you  this  must  of  course  be  offensive  :  but  re- 
member that  the  Jesuits,  by  their  instruments, 
repeatedly  attempted,  and  at  last  effected  the  as- 
sassination of  his  sovereign,  the  deluded  Hen- 
ry, who  had  sold  his  conscience,  and  sacrificed 
his  friend,  disobliged  his  premier,  and  opposed 
his  legislature,  to  obtain  the  favour  of  these  men 
of  blood.  This  is  proved  by  your  own  witness, 
the  Duke  of  Sully,  who  faithfully  warned  him  of 
the  consequences  of  his  credulity. 

As  you  have  promised  an  appendix  professing 
to  contain  a  list  of  your  opponent's  '  falsifications 
of  authorities,'  permit  me  to  dwell  a  little  longer 
upon  a  subject  which  seems  to  engross  so  much 
of  your  time.  In  letter  seventh  you  said,  "that 
the  standard  of  Presbyterianism  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
makes  it  a  sin  against  the  second  commandment  of 
God,  '  to  tolerate  a  false  religion"*  In  the  next 
sentence  you  intimate  that  this  is  the  standard 
adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  our  church. 
Thus  you  were  understood,  and  all  your  answers 
prove  that  you  were  understood  rightly.  In  se- 
veral of  these  answers  you  resolutely  insisted  that 
you  had  quoted  correctly  from  our  standard.  You 
gave  repeated  evidence  that  you  had  before  you 
our  authentic  constitution,  by  the  frequency  with 
which  you  laughed  at  its  revision  in  1821;  even 
falsely  insinuating  that  its  doctrines  were  altered 
in  that  revision.  Yet  it  is  a  fact,  and  you  knew 
it,  that  this  revised  constitution  which  was  in 
your  hands  does  not  contain  that  clause;  and  that 
our  General  Assembly  never  adopted  it  in  any 
period  of  its  existence.  You  were  informed  of 
this;  and  that  the  Assembly  had  adopted  princi- 
ples in  direct  opposition  to  that  clause.  Yet  you 
adhered  to  it,  letter  after  letter;  and  accompanied 
every  repetition  with  renewed  allegations  of  falsi- 
fied authorities  against  your  opponent.  But  Je- 
suits know  how  to  do  these  things. 

Your  charges  of  corruption  are  not  confined  to 
our  writers,  but  extend  to  our  Scriptures.  The 
instance  upon  which   your  church  dwells  with 


tar 


most  soll-complacency,  is  1  Cor.  xi.  27,  where  the 
note  in  the  Doway  Bible  says,  '  Here  erroneous 
translators  corrupted  the  text.'  The  alleged  cor- 
ruption is,  that  they  translated  a  Greek  conjunc- 
tion by  the  word  *  and,''  instead  of  '  orS  They 
are  not  probably  aware  that  the  Doway  Bible  has 
given  the  same  word  the  same  rendering  a  half  a 
dozen  times. 

But  this  is  not  so  remarkable  as  another  instance 
arising  from  Heb.  xi.  21,  where  your  Bible  states 
that  Jacob  '  worshipped  the  top  of  his  rod.!  The 
note  says,  '  But  some  translators  who  are  no 
friends  to  this  relative  honour,  have  corrupted  the 
text,  by  translating  it,  He  worshipped,  leaning  upon 
the  top  of  his  stuff.''  In  defence  ef  their  idolatrous 
view  of  the  subject,  the  note  asserts  that  '  The 
Apostle  here  follows  the  ancient  Greek  Bible  of 
the  seventy  interpreters,  which  translates  in  this 
manner  Gen.  xlvii.  verse  31.'  So  also  in  the  place 
here  referred  to,  these  Doway  Annotators  assert 
that  Paul,  '  following  the  Greek  translation  of  the 
Septuagint,  reads,  adored  the  top  of  his  rod.''  Now, 
Sir,  I  should  be  glad  if  you  would  inform  the  pub- 
lic, whether  the  copy  of  the  Septuagint  here  re- 
ferred to,  was  or  was  not  published  by  Towar  and 
Hogan  in  1829,  along  with  that  constitution  of 
ours  which  never  existed.  But  if  such  a  copy  can 
be  found,  it  is  certainly  opposed  by  that  of  a  Ger- 
man Papist,  Leander  Van  Ess,  and  by  theAldine 
Edition,  which  was  patronized  by  '  a  Sacerdotal 
Cardinal  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church,'  and  '  Le- 
gate de  latere  to  his  Catholic  Majesty.'  Here  then 
we  have  the  Doway  Bible  accusing  our  Bible  of 
corruption;  and  in  order  to  prove  it,  it  corrupts  the 
Septuagint,  the  Romish  copies  of  which  are  in 
our  favour,  as  well  as  all  others  that  are  at  hand; 
and  all  this  is  done  to  prove  that  men  ought  to 
worship  staves  and  rods,  and  Popish  gods. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  Doway  translators 
were  made  Bishops  and  Cardinals;  for  they  were 
certainly  unfit  to  live  with  any  other  description 
of  men.  Instead  of  our  being  wholly  indebted 
to  your  church,  as  you  often  assert,  for  the  trans- 
mission of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  a  real  fact,  that 
through  divine  mercy,  we  have  them  in  their 
purity  and  plenty,  in  despite  of  your  invincible 
propensity  to  suppress  and  corrupt  them.  Yet 
these  corrupters  of  the  words  of  God  and  men 
are  the  pompous  self-constituted  guardians  of  the 
purity  of  both. 

6.  Perversion.  You  seem  to  think  your  oppo- 
nent incapable  of  doing  justice  to  almost  any  au- 
thority, without  the  aid  of  your  infallibility  of  in- 
terpretation. Yet  I  cannot  forbear  reminding  you 
of  one  or  two  specimens  which  make  you  appear 
an  incompetent  judge  of  such  matters.  You  as- 
serted that  the  present  constitution  of  the  General 
Assembly  Church  contained  the  clause  against 
tolerating  a  false  religion.  Your  opponent  de- 
nied it.  In  reply  you  declare  that  '  Dr.  Miller 
asserts  positively  the  contrary.'  If  this  be  true, 
Dr.  Miller  must  assert  that  the  present  constitu- 
tion of  our  General  Assembly  contains  the  clause 
in  question.  Yet  Dr.  Miller's  statement  to 
which  you  refer,  speaks  not  of  the  present  time, 
bat  more  than  a  century  ago.     It  speaks  not  of 


the  General  Assembly,  but  of  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, more  than  half  a  century  before  the 
General  Assembly  existed.  If  you  had  consult- 
ed the  Doctor's  testimony  elsewhere,  about  the 
first  acts  of  our  General  Assembly,  you  would 
have  found  him  stating  that  '  The  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  with  three  inconsiderable 
alterations,  and  the  Westminster  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms,  with  one  small  amendment 
in  the  former,  were  solemnly  adopted  as  a  sum- 
mary exhibition  of  the  faith  of  the  church.'  "  This 
single  amendment  in  the  Larger  Catechism,  con- 
sisted in  expunging  the  words  '  the  tolerating  of  a 
false  religion''  from  the  answer  to  the  109th  ques- 
tion, what  are  the  sins  forbidden  in  the  second  com- 
mandment?"  These  are  Dr.  Miller's  own  words; 
and  they  are  accompanied  with  a  detailed  account 
of  the  three  alterations  in  the  Confession  of  Faith ; 
one  of  them  relating  to  '  Christian  liberty,  and. 
liberty  of  conscience,''  and  the  other  two  guarding 
against  a  connexion  with  the  state,  and  only  ask- 
ing the  protection  of  the  civil  magistrate  for  our- 
selves in  common  with  all  other  denominations, 
without  asking  a  preference  over  any.  Thus  you 
have  taken  Dr.  Miller's  statement  of  a  truth,  and 
perverted  it  to  that  which  you  know  is  not  true, 
and  which  he  never  said  was  true. 

But  to  prove  that  our  constitution  is  still 
intolerant,  your  Letter  17  says,  "Even  now, 
according  to  your  standard  of  1821,  the 
magistrates  are  'nursing  fathers  to  the 
church  of  our  common  Lord.'  "  This  is  not 
only  a  perversion,  but  a  false  quotation. 
Your  omissions  of  words  in  the  middle  of 
the  clause  would  not  be  so  much,  if  you  had 
not  so  mutilated  it  as  to  conceal  the  fact  that 
it  contains  the  very  opposite  sentiment  from 
that  which  you  attribute  to  it.  The  real 
passage  reads  as  follows,  viz.:  4  Yet,  as  nurs- 
ing fathers,  it  is  the  duty  of  civil  magistrates 
to  protect  the  church  of  our  common  Lord, 
without  giving  the  preference  to  any  denomi- 
nation of  Christians  above  the  rest,  in  such  a 
manner,  that  all  ecclesiastical  persons  what- 
ever, shall  enjoy  the  full,  free,  and  unques- 
tioned liberty  of  discharging  every  part  of 
their  sacred  functions  without  violence  or 
danger.'  If  this  be  the  language  of  intole- 
rance, what  is  meant  by  the  following  pas- 
sage in  the  Pope's  letter  to  his  Cardinals, 
February  5,  1808,  concerning  Napoleon's 
project  of  a  general  toleration?  'It  is  pro- 
posed that  all  religious  persuasions  should 
be  free,  and  their  worship  publicly  exercised  : 
but  we  have  rejected  this  article  as  contrary 
to  the  canons,  and  to  the  councils;  to  the  Ca- 
tholic religion;  to  the  peace  of  human  life; 
and  to  the  welfare  of  the  state;  on  account 
of  the  deplorable  consequences  which  would 
ensue  from  it.'  This  liberal  language  of  the 
Pope  was  reiterated  by  the  Belgian  brshops 


:*i8 


in  a  tetter  to  their  new  sovereign,  July  28, 
1815.  '  Sire,  the  existence  and  the  privi- 
leges of  the  Catholic  Church  in  this  part  of 
your  kingdom  are  inconsistent  with  an  arti- 
cle of  the  new  constitution,  by  which  equal 
favour  and  protection  are  promised  to  all  re- 
ligions.'' 'Since  the  conversion  of  the  Bel- 
gians to  Christianity,  such  a  dangerous  inno- 
vation lias  never  been  introduced  into  these 
Provinces,  unless  by  force.''  '  Sire,  we  do 
not  hesitate  to  declare  to  your  Majesty,  that 
the  Canonical  laws  which  are  sanctioned  by 
the  ancient  constitutions  of  the  country,  are 
incompatible  with  the  projected  constitution, 
which  would  give  in  Belgium  equal  favour 
and  protection  to  all  religions.'  'Already 
the  proclamation  of  jour  Majesty,  which  an- 
nounced ftat  the  new  constitution  should 
insure  the  liberty  of  religion,  and  give  all 
equal  favour  and  protection,  filed  every  heart 
with  consternation' !! !  ' ...  .and  if  your  Majes- 
ty, by  virtue  of  a  fundamental  laic,  protected 
in  these  provinces  the  public  profession  and 
spreading  of  these  doctrines  the  progress  of 
which  we  are  bound  to  oppose  with  all  the 
care  and  energy  which  the  Catholic  Church 
expects  from  our  office,  we  should  be  in  for- 
mal opposition  to  the  laws  of  the  state,  to  the 
measures  which  your  majesty  might  adopt  to 
maintain  them  amongst  us,  and  in  spile  of  all 
our  endeavours  to  secure  union  and  peace,  the 
public  tranquillity  might  still  be  disturbed.' 

Here  they  profess  to  aim  at  union,  peace, 
and  tranquillity:  but  it  is  Popish  union,  pas- 
sive ptace,  and  the  tranquillity  of  slavery. 
The  proposal  for  the  toleration  of  all  reli- 
gions, with  equal  freedom,  favour,  and  pro- 
tection, they  openly  reject.  They  consider 
it  a  dangerous  innovation,  which  filled  every 
Popish  heart  with  consternation;  and  which 
was  never  introduced,  unless  by  force!  and 
they  plainly  intimate  that  force  shall  be  used 
to  destroy  this  liberty,  even  in  opposition  to 
fundamental  laws,  to  laws  of  the  state,  and 
to  the  measures  of  the  executive  fur  main- 
taining these  laws.  All  this  every  sincere 
and  intelligent  Papist  feels  bound  to  do,  for 
the  reasons  given  by  the  Pope  and  Bishops 
above;  that  is,  because  the  toleration  of  Pro- 
testantism is  contrary  to  'the  Catholic  reli- 
gion,' its  councils,  canons,  constitutions,  and 
customs.  All  this  you  are  in  the  habit  of 
perverting,  to  speak  the  language  of  liberty 
and  toleration;  while  you  make  our  consti- 
tution intolerant,  though  it  is  the  decided, 
uniform,  aud  consistent  advocate  of  liberty. 
And  you  are  the  oracle  to  which  we  are 
to  look  for  infallible  interpretations,  and  un- 
corrupted  traditions.     To  such  interpreters 


Isaiah  said,  '  Woe  unto  them  that  call  evil 
good,  and  good  evil;  that  put  darkness  for 
light,  and  light  for  darkness;  that  put  bitter 
for  sweet,  and  sweet  for  bitter.'  To  such 
oracles  Solomon  said,  'He  that  justifieth  the 
wicked,  and  he  that  coqdemneth  the  just, 
even  they  both  are  abomination  to  the  Lord.' 
Yet  you  expound  Scripture  as  you  do  our 
creeds.  God  never  intended  such  shep'ierds 
to  guide  his  flock. 

But  if  you  are  skilful  in  perverting  our 
creed,  you  are  equally  dexterous  in  pervert- 
ing your  own.  Your  Council  of  Trent  or- 
dered an  Expurgatorial  Index,  and  ordained 
measures  for  continuing  and  enlarging  it  un- 
til Babylon  the  great  shall  fall.  In  the 
Brief  of  Pope  Benedict  XIV.  dated  Decem- 
ber 23d,  1757,  he  says:  *  By  Apostolic  au- 
thority we  hereby  approve  and  confirm  this 
Index,  and  command  it  to  be  observed  in- 
violably, by  all  and  every  person  in  what- 
ever part  of  the  world  they  live,  under  the 
penalties  ordained  in  the  rules  of  the  index, 
as  well  as  in  the  Apostolical  letters  and  con- 
stitutions.' And  in  his  Brief  of  July  9th, 
1753:  he  denounces  the  '  anger  of  Almighty 
God,  and  of  the  blessed  Apostles,  Peter  and 
Paul,' against  'any  one  who  may  dare  to  in- 
fringe or  contravene'  these  letters. 

Greatly  as  your  last  letter  boasts  of  the  num- 
ber and  antiquity  of  Popish  translations  of  the 
Scriptures,  into  living  languages,  you  know 
that  by  this  high  enactment,  originating  in 
the  great  Council,  and  sanctioned  by  your 
supreme  head  of  the  church,  these  Scrip- 
tures, or  portions  of  Scripture,  are  allowed 
'only  to  learned  and  pious  men,  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Bishop.'  The  learned  must 
have  them,  that  they  may  pervert  them  to 
the  support  of  Popery;  and  those  whom  the 
Bishop  will  pronounce  pious  may  have  them, 
because  they  will  interpret  them  as  the 
Bishop  shall  dictate:  but  they  are  not  to  be 
distributed  as  means  of  instruction  and  con- 
version among  the  ignorant  and  wicked. 
They  might  make  them  all  Protestants. 
For  these  the  Index  allows  '  sermons  in  the 
vulgar  tongue,  designed  for  the  people;'  and 
also,  '  works  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  which 
treat  of  morality,  contemplation,  confession, 
and  similar  subjects,  and  which  contain  noth- 
ing contrary  to  sound  doctrine;'  that  is,  to 
full  blooded  Romanism. 

Your  opponent  has  amply  shown  what 
sort  of  morality  prevails  at  head-quarters, 
and  Pascal  has  shown  what  sort  of  books  of 
morality  are  allowed  there.  You  seem  to 
admit  that  in  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  and 
wherever  the  Pope,  the  Inquisition,  or  the 


rs  1 1> 


Jesuits  are  dominant;  there  are  penalties  ap- 
pointed against  the  writing,  printing,  selling, 
buying,  reading,  or  keeping  of  any  thing 
prohibited  in  their  Index;  any  thing  which 
they  may  deem  inconsistent  with  Popish 
literature,  politics,  theology,  or  morality. 
'The  imprisonment  of  Galileo  in  the  seven- 
teenth, and  the  burning  of  the  works  of 
Giannone  in  the  eighteenth  century,  are 
sufficient  indications  of  the  deplorable  state 
of  the  Italians,  during  a  period  in  which 
knowledge  was  advancing  with  such  rapidity 
in  countries  long  regarded  by  them  as  bar- 
barous.' As  for  'Madrid,  provided  you 
avoid  saving  any  thing  concerning  govern- 
ment,  or  religion,  or  politics,  or  morals,  or 
statesmen,  or  bodies  of  reputation,  or  the 
opera,  or  any  other  public  amusement,  or 
any  one  who  is  engaged  in  any  business, 
you  may  print  what  you  please,  under 
the  correction  of  two  or  three  censors.' 
(M'Crie's  Spain,  p.  386.) 

This  is  the  sort  of  liberty  which  is  enjoyed 
wherever  the  expurgatorial  Index  is  acknow- 
ledged, and  it  is  acknowledged  wherever  Po- 
pery has  the  power  to  enforce  it  with  '■penal- 
ties.' But  your  last  letter  tells  us  'that  there 
are  many  countries  in  which  the  prohibitory 
index  is  not  acknowledged — for  example, 
France,  England,  Ireland,  and  our  own  coun- 
try.' Yes,  and  it  was  for  refusing  such  ac- 
knowledgments that  such  French  Romanists 
as  Pascal,  du  Pin,  and  Thuanus  were  de- 
nounced at  Home,  by  the  Pope,  and  denoun- 
ced in  Philadelphia,  by  Mr.  Hughes.  If  the 
people  of  France  write  as  they  please,  is  it 
because  the  obligation  of  the  Index  has  ceas- 
ed ?  Charles  X.  would  soon  have  informed 
us,  if  he  had  gained  that  absolute  ascendency 
over  the  press  and  people,  at  which  he  and 
his  Jesuitical  counsellors  and  priests  were 
aiming.  If  England  and  Ireland  enjoy  a 
little  liberty,  is  it  because  the  prohibitory 
index  has  ceased  to  be  'binding  upon  the 
whole  church,'  as  your  opponent  says  that  it 
is?  Your  last  letter  dares  not  deny  its  obli- 
gation, although  it  impeaches  your  opponent's 
character  for  stating  that  fact.  Let  your 
boasted  recantation  of  the  cowardly  Jewell 
say,  whether  another  bloody  Mary  would  not 
soon  remind  the  people  of  England  and  Ire- 
land, that  the  Index  must  be  acknowledged, 
wherever  its  penalties  can  be  enforced.  Let 
the  above  briefs  of  Pope  Benedict  XIV.  com- 
manding '  it  to  be  observed  inviolably  by  all 
and  every  person,  in  whatever  part  of  the 
world  they  live,''  decide  this  question. 

You  repeat  in  your  last  letter  what  you 
have  often  asserted  with  great  satisfaction, 


that  your  opponent  cannot (  show  so  much  as 
two  Catholics  in  the  whole  world,  professing 
a  different  belief  on  any  article  of  faith,'  or 
'  doctrine,'  as  you  express  it  in  Letter  XV. 
You  then  take  care  to  remind  us  that  'the 
distinction  between  faith,  opinions,  and  mere 
local  customs,  has  been  pointed  out.'  Yes, 
you  have  frequently  told  us  that  there  was  a 
great  difference  between  opinions  on  the  one 
hand,  and  faith,  or  doctrines,  on  the  Q*h§F| 
and  that  you  were  all  agreed  in  the  latter, 
though  not  in  the  former.  But  this  distinc- 
tion appears  to  have  been  kept  up  only  to 
shield  yourself,  and  laid  aside  when  you  wish- 
ed to  assail  your  opponent.  You  know  how 
long  and  repeatedly  you  have  insisted  that 
our  standard,  being  that  of  Westminster, 
condemns  toleration.  Your  opponent  inform- 
ed you  that  in  this  respect  theirs  was  not  now 
our  standard.  You  replied,  'if  this  be  not 
now  your  standard,  it  is  because  you  have 
departed,  in  so  much,  at  least,  from  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints.''  This  matter  of 
toleration  then  belongs  to  the  faith  of  Pres- 
byterian saints.  You  then  go  on  to  say  that 
several  texts  of  Scripture  were  formerly  ad- 
duced to  prove  the  sinfulness  of  toleration; 
after  which  you  observe,  '  The  doctrines 
which  they  were  intended  to  support  are  as 
true,  (though  perhaps  not  so  palateable)  since 
the  revolution  as  they  had  been  before.''  "The 
doctrines  of  Christ  do  not  change  with  the 
shiftings  of  every  political  gale.  And  though 
the  British  Lion  gave  place  to  the  Eagle  of 
Independence,  '  some  fifty  years  ago,'  yet  I 
find  it  difficult  to  discover,  by  what  myste- 
rious process  this  event  could  have  nullified 
the  scriptural  doctrines  of  your  standards, 
or  converted  them  into  •  offensive  passages.' 
Albeit,  it  seems  that  the  work  of  reformation 
in  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  is  not  the  pecu- 
liar privilege  of  any  age."  Thus  it  seems 
that  when  a  belief  in  the  sinfulness  of  tolera- 
tion is  attributed  to  Presbyterians,  thisbelief 
is  said  by  Mr.  Hughes  to  belong  to  their 
faith,  and  to  the  doctrines  of  their  stand- 
ards: and  when  their  belief  changes  on  this 
subject,  Mr.  Hughes  accuses  them  of  depart- 
ing from  their  former  faith,  and  altering  the 
doctrines  of  their  standards  ;  insinuating 
that  this  was  done  from  political  motives. 
You  forgot  to  say  any  thing  about  opinions 
here;  but  you  taught  plainly  that  a  belief  in 
the  lighteousness  or  sinfulness  of  toleration, 
bdonged  to  our  faith,  and  our  doctrines. 

Now  let  us  see  if  Mr.  Hughes  can  find  any 
faith  or  doctrines  in  that  specimen  of  tole- 
ration, the  Expurgatorial  Index,  about  which 
he  tells  us  that  England  and  Ireland,  France 


g&d 


iind  America,  tlifter  from  the  rest  of  the  Po- 
pish world.  The  faith  of  that  instrument 
is,  'Inasmuch  as  it  is  manifest  from  expe- 
rience, that  if  (he  Holy  Bible,  translated  into 
the  vulgar  tongue,  be  indiscriminately  allow- 
ed to  every  one,  the  temerity  of  men  will 
cause  more  evil  than  good  to  arise  from  it,  it 
is,  on  this  point,  referred  to  the  judgment  of 
the  Bishops  or  Inquisitors.' — v  H  any  one 
shall  have  the  presumption  to  read  or  possess 
it  without  such  written  permission,  [as  these 
Bishops  or  Inquisitors  may  give]  he  shall  not 
receive  absolution  until  he  shall  have  first 
delivered  up  such  Bible  to  the  ordinary. 
Booksellers,  however,  who  shall  sell,  or 
otherwise  dispose  of  Bibles  in  the  vulgar 
tongue,  to  any  person  not  having  such  per- 
mission, shall  forfeit  the  value  of  the  books, 
to  be  applied  by  the  Bishop  to  some  pious 
usej  and  be  subjected  by  the  Bishop  to  such 
Other  penalties  as  the  Bishop  shall  judge 
proper!  according  to  the  quality  of  the  of- 
fence. But  regulars  shall  neither  read  nor 
purchase  such  Bibles  without  a  special  li- 
cense from  their  superiors.' 

We  have  now  seen  what  is  the  faith  of 
the  Index,  and  of  those  nations  who  taste  its 
penalties,  at  the  discretion  of  their  Bishops; 
Jet  us  inquire  what  is  the  faith  of  a  Romanist 
of  this  city,  called  Mathew  Carey,  who  has 
Sold  myriads  of  Protestant  Bibles  indiscri- 
minately, while  he  has  almost,  if  not  totally, 
neglected  the  Popish  Bible.  Does  he  agree 
with  the  Index,  in  the  doctrine  that  -more 
evil  than  good  arises  from  the  indiscriminate 
distribution  of  the  Bible?  Does  he  receive 
the  doctrine  that  booksellers  who  dispose  of 
Bibles  to  those  who  have  not  a  written  per- 
mission from  the  Inquisitors,  should  forfeit 
the  value  of  the  books,  and  be  subject  to 
those  tender  things  called  penalties,  at  the 
discretion  of  a  Bishop? 

The  Index  moreover  says,  'Books  of  con- 
troversy betwixt  the  Catholics  and  heretics 
of  the  present  time,  written  in  the  vulgar 
tongue,  are  not  to  be  indiscriminately  allow- 
ed, but  are  to  be  subject  to  the  same  regula- 
tions as  Bibles  in  the  vulgar  tongue:'  that  is, 
they  must  neither  be  bought  nor  sold,  read 
nor  kept,  without  high  written  permission, 
unless  the  offenders  are  prepared  for  forfei- 
tures and  penalties.  To  this  faith  you  pre- 
tend to  have  such  a  mortal  antipathy,  that 
you  can  never  forget  Mr.  Burtt,  because  he 
once  happened  to  hear  and  repeat  something 
about  a  practical  adherence  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Index.  The  mere  insinuation  that  any 
of  you  were  likely  to  believe  the  doctrine  of 
your  own  standard  was  considered  an  unpar- 


donable affront.  Your  complaint  against  him 
is  reiterated  in  your  last  letter,  in  which  you 
boast  that  'throughout  the  universe,  Catho- 
lics are  as  united  in  their  faith,  as  if  they 
dwelt  under  the  same  roof;'  and  as  a  proof 
of  this  perfect  union  you  let  us  know  that  the 
doctrines  of  the  Index  on  toleration,  which 
Pope  Benedict  XIV.  declares  to  be  of  uni- 
versal obligation,  and  which  are  received  by 
all  nations  under  Papal,  Inquisitorial,  or  Je- 
suitical penalties,  are  not  acknowledged  by 
those  nations  which  are  not  so  subjected. 
That  is,  this  very  doctrine  of  toleration 
which  forms  a  part  of  your  standards,  is  re- 
ceived by  one  half  of  your  church  where  it 
can  be  enforced,  and  rejected  by  the  other 
half,  where  it  cannot  be  so  enforced.  And 
this  proves  that  you  are  all  perfectly  agreed 
in  every  doctrine,  and  differ  only  in  mere 
opinions!  ! 

Your  last  letter  affords  more  cases  of  per- 
version, connected  with  this  Index,  which  I 
must  not  omit.  One  is  the  long  quotation 
from  Chrysostom.  He  says  concerning  the 
vessels  used  in  the  Eucharist,  '  They  can  nei- 
ther taste  nor  feel  him  whom  they  contain, 
but  we  most  certainly?  This  is  our  language 
and  doctrine,  but  not  yours.  The  Eighth 
Presbyterian  Church  in  which  I  have  the  ho- 
nour to  worship,  though  descended  from  the 
Scotch,  use  the  Reformed  Dutch  Psalmody  a 
part  of  the  day.  It  affords  many  instances  of 
language  as  figurative  as  that  of  Chrysostom. 
Take  the  following  example,  in  the  1st  verse 
of  the  69th  Hymn: 

"  Here  at  thy  table,  Lord  we  meet, 

To  feed  on  food  divine  ; 
Thy  body  is  the  bread  we  eat, 

Thy  precious  blood  the  wine.' 

We  believe  that  the  bread  and  the  wine  are 
the  body  and  blood  of  Clwht  figuratively,  as 
the  manna  was  Christ  figuratively ;  and  that 
in  this  sense,  the  vessels  were  said  to  contain 
him;  and  we  believe  that  we  can  taste  and 
feel  him  by  faith,  the  only  way  in  which  he 
may  now  be  tasted  and  felt,  most  certainly: 
but  if  Chrysostom  meant  that  the  bread  and 
wine  most  certainly  underwent  such  a  change 
as  to  appear  to  the  senses  of  sight,  taste,  or 
touch,  any  thing  more  than  bread  and  wine, 
he  differed  from  your  church  as  well  as  ours. 
As  to  his  saying,  'Adore  and  communicate,' 
that  is  very  far  from  offending  us,  if  you  will 
with  him  adore  the  divine  Saviour  in  heaven, 
instead  of  a  wafer  on  earth. 

The  Index  makes  provision  for  condemn- 
ing summaries,  or  lists  of  contents  which 
may  displease  them  while  they  keep  posses- 
sion of  the  work  itself.     Several  propositions- 


321 


of  such  a  list  were  ordered  to  be  expunged 
from  the  works  of  Chrysosfom,  because  it 
favoured  Protestantism;  They  are  as  fol- 
lows: 'That  sins  are  to  be  confessed  to  God, 
not  to  mans  that  we  are  justified  by  faith 
only;  that  Christ  forbids  us  to  kill  Heretics; 
that  it  is  great  stupidity  to  bow  before 
images:  that  Priests  are  subject  to  princes: 
that  salvation  docs  not  flow  from  our  own 
merits;  that  the  Scriptures  are  easy  to  be 
understood;  and  that  the  reading  of  them  is 
to  be  enjoined  upon  all  men.'  (Cramp.) 
In  his  day  they  had  begun  to  bow  before 
images;  but  not  to  worship  the  bread;  and 
therefore  he  condemns  the  one,  and  is  silent 
on  the  other.  Hut  the  Homilies  of  Chrysos- 
tom,  from  which  you  profess  to  quote,  ap- 
pear so  peculiarly  obnoxious  to  the  Index; 
that  it  has  condemned  a  whole  edition  of 
them  i:i  the  lump,  under  the  following  title, 
viz.  '.Homilies,  or  Sermons  of  St.  John 
Chrysostom,  Archbishop  of  Constantinople, 
upon  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Romans.' 
But  that  was  a  French  translation;  and  they 
may  have  dared  to  publish  it,  as  they  did 
Pascal,  du  Pin,  and  Thttanus;  and  as  Mat- 
thew Carey  did  the  Protestant  Bible,  with- 
out a  written  license  from  the  Inquisitors! 

But  how  came  they  to  prohibit  the  Latin 
works  of  another  of  your  authorities?  This 
they  have  done  by  the  following  title,  viz. 
'  St.  Cypriani  Opera  Recognita  per  Joannem 
Oxoniensem  Episcopum.'  Two  lines  after 
St,  Cyprian,  the  Index  condemns  a  Latin 
edition  of  St.  Cyril,  another  of  your  authori- 
ties, '  donee  corrigaturf  that  is,  until  it 
shall  be  Romanized;  as  your  church  is  in 
the  habit  of  doing  with  the  Bible,  Fathers, 
and  any  thing  else,  as  far  as  you  think  it 
safe.  Yet  for  reminding  you  of  this,  your 
opponent  is  considered  in  your  last  letter 
as  equally  insulting  and  absurd.  I  suppose 
you  know  who  published  an  edition  of  the 
Psalms,  which  perverted  them  from  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Messiah,  to  that  of  the  Virgin 
Mary.  As  these  were  sufficiently  Roman- 
ized, the  Index  did  not  need  to  correct  or 
prohibit  them  ;  but  it  prohibits  the  Psalms 
as  published  by  Martin  Luther  and  others, 
because  they  are  incorrigible  in  their  regard 
for  the  Messiah,  and  their  opposition  to  idol- 
atry. For  this,  Luther  must  be  consigned 
to  destruction,  while  your  Pope,  St.  Marcel- 
linus  is  called  the  supreme  Head  of  the 
church,  although  your  own  Bellarmine  con- 
fesses that  he  sacrificed  to  idols.  Bellar- 
mine's  excuse  for  him  is,  that  he  did  it 
through  fear  of  death.  This  seems  to  be  the 
excuse  of  your  last  letter,  for  the  adoption  of 


the  Arian  creed  by  Pope  Libcrius;  who  ac- 
cording to  Bellarmine,  was  deservedly  cast 
out  from  the  Pontificate,  on  the  presumption 
of  heresy.  I  suppose  this  is  the  excuse  for 
a  later  Pope,  in  blessing  and  crowning 
Bonaparte,  and  attending  to  his  various 
marriages.  But  was  not  Luther's  life  in 
danger?  and  why  did  he  not  relapse  into  the 
Worship  of  (he  Virgin,  and  the  crucifix,  and 
images,  and  relics,  and  other  Popish  idols? 
The  reason  is  that  Luther  loved  Christ  bet- 
ter than  life,  and  was  therefore  not  fit  to  be 
a  Pope  nor  a  Popish  saint.  Their  martyrs 
die  when  no  renunciations  nor  conformities 
can  save  them. 

The  late  mention  of  a  Popish  perversion 
of  the  Psalms  to  the  honour  of  your  Virgin 
idol,  reminds  me  that  the  Breviary,  one  of 
your  ecclesiastical  formularies,  contains  a 
similar  perversion  of  the  glorious  prophecy 
of  the  Messiah  as  the  'Star'  that  should 
arise  out  of  Jacob.  Your  Breviary  declares 
that  this  Star  is  the  Virgin  Mary. 

Your  opponent  asked  you,  'did  the  Coun- 
cil of  Lateran  pass  an  anathema  against 
those  rulers  who  should  tax  ecclesiastics?' 
Your  reply  about  'immunities  secured  to 
them  by  previously  existing  laws,'  gives  a 
hint  which  is  improved  by  the  Index,  in 
which  are  prohibited  'all  books  wTiich  im- 
pugn the  immunity  of  ecclesiastical  goods.' 
And  yet  yon  could  teil  us  in  Letter  15th, 
concerning  Bellarmine,  that  "on  points  of 
political  economy*  or  civil  government^  as 
they  are  not  even  '•'fere  dc  fide"1  his  pen  wag 
at  liberty  to  ramble  as  well  'as  that  of  any 
other  it! i victual. "  Your  reason  for  this,  is,- 
that  his  views  of  'political  economy  or  civil" 
government'  are  merely  his  '  opinions?  not 
his  'doctrines.''  When  speaking  of  doc- 
trines, you  confess  that  he  is  a  standard 
writer;  but  in  matters  of  opinion  he  and  alt 
others  are  at  liberty  to  ramble.  ThU  yon- 
must  know  to  be  in  direct  opposition  to  your 
own  standards.  Permit  me  to  remind  you 
of  the  titles  of  a  few  books  prohibited  by 
your  Index:  viz.  '  Historical,  Juridical,  and 
/V)//7ic«/disscussinn  upon  the  real  immunity  of 
churches  and  other  pious  places,'  &c.  *  Trea- 
tise of  the  rights  of  the  "State  and  of  the 
Prince,  oVfer properly  possessed  by  the  ClergyS 
'  Treatise  of  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  Laws 
against  Heretic*,  by  the  Popes,  the  Emper- 
ors, the  Kings,  and  the  Crjncils,  General 
and  Provincial,  approved  by  the  Church  of 
Rome;  with  a  discourse  against  Persecution; 
translated  from  the  English,'  into  French, 
Now,  Sir,  you  see  something  of  the  extent 
of  our  liberty  to  ramble  over  the  ground  of 


$32 


political  economy  and  civil  government. 
We  are  at  perfect  liberty  to  write  in  favour 
of  persecution  by  the  Pope,  the  Inquisition, 
and  the  Jesuits;  and  to  defend  the  supre- 
macy of  the  Romish  church  over  all  States 
and  Princes.  Among  such  opinions  as  these 
we  may  securely  ramble:  but  when  -we  begin 
to  advocate  toleration,  and  the  rights  of  civil 
governments,  the  Index  -whispers  that  our 
opinions  are  becoming  doctrines,  and  that 
there  are  penalties  attached  to  them. 

7.  Falsehood.  It  is  astonishing  to  see  the 
familiarity  and  boldness  with  which  such 
charges  as  this  are  brought  against  intelli- 
gent, candid,  and  correct  Protestant  writers, 
Dy  controversialists  of  your  communion.  You 
remind  us  of  500  enormous  falsehoods  charg- 
ed upon  one  book,  against  which  not  more 
than  one  error  could  be  proved;  and  even 
that  arising  from  giving  credit  to  a  Roman 
priest.  You  have  not  yet  told  us  whether 
your  promised  Appendix  shall  contain  500 
or  5000  against  your  opponent  :  but  accord- 
ing to  the  plan  which  you  have  pursued,  in 
imitation  of  the  Bishop  of  Evrcux,  and  the 
Bishop  of  Aire,  you  may,  with  your  charac- 
teristic industry  in  such  matters,  enumerate 
five  times  5000;  and  the  more  the  better, 
as  your  main  strength  seems  connected  with 
this  sort  of  stock.  Permit  a  friend,  however, 
to  give  you  a  hint  that  you  have  not  yet  fur- 
nished your  vocabulary  of  calumny  with  quite 
as  rich  a  variety  of  expression  as  the  French 
Bishop,just  now  mentioned,  used  against  the 
cool,  candid,  and  gentlemanly  Faber.  Like 
him,    you  should,   at    every   coiner,    accuse 

your  opponent  of cunning — treachery — 

odious  artifice — disgraceful  artifice — dis- 
graceful prevarication — fraud — gross  false- 
hood— most  splendid  falsehood — bold  men- 
dacity— most  palpable  mendacity. 

Now  it  appears  to  me  that  if  you  and 
your  fellow  labourers  in  this  truly  laborious 
work  of  enumerating  the  pretended  lies  of 
your  more  honest  neighbours,  could  only 
prove  one  in  a  score  of  your  charges,  I  should 
strongly  suspect  the  Protestants  to  be  the  peo- 
ple, who,  according  to  Paul,  '  shall  depart 
from  the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spi- 
rits, and  doctrines  of  devils,  speaking  lies  in 
hypocrisy.'  'Whose  coming  is  after  the 
working  of  Satan,  with  all  power,  and  signs, 
and  lying  wonders.' 

To  tell  who  are  the  people  here  intended 
is  worth  a  serious  examination.  You  know 
we  pretend  to  no  signs  and  wonders;  we  are 
the  subjects  of  no  miracles,  except  miracles 
of  grace.  Your  celebrated  Milner  says  that 
4  Miracles  are  the  criterion  of  truth.'    Speak- 


ing of  your  church  he  says,  '  I  am  prepared 
to  show  that  God  himself  has  borne  testimo- 
ny to  her  holiness,  and  to  those  very  doc- 
trines and  practices,  which  Protestants  ob- 
ject to  as  unholy  and  superstitious,  by  the 
many  incontestable  miracles  he  has  wrought 
in  her,  and  in  their  favour,  from  the  age  of 
the  Apostles  down  to  the  present  age.'  He 
boasts  of  the  "  number,  splendor,  and  pub- 
licity" of  the  miracles  of  St.  Francis  Xavier, 
who  was  cotemporary  with  Luther;  whom  he 
scorns  for  performing.no  miracle. 

From  the  Apostles  to  the  Reformation  he 
considers  Popish  miracles  established  by  the 
best  witnesses;  and  he  quotes  Middleton  to 
show  that  the  "  same  succession  is  still  fur- 
ther deduced  by  persons  of  the  same  eminent 
character  for  probity,  learning,  and  dignity, 
in  the  Romish  Church,  to  this  very  day  ;  so 
that  the  only  doubt  which  can  remain  with 
us  is,  whether  church  historians  are  to  be 
trusted  or  not:  for  if  any  credit  be  due  to 
them  in  the  present  case,  it  must  reach  to  all 
or  none:  because  the  reason  for  believing 
them  in  any  one  age  will  be  found  to  be  of 
equal  force  in  all,  as  far  as  it  depends  on  the 
character  of  the  persons  attesting,  or  on  the 
thing  attested.' 

This  great  Romanist  says,  '  With  respect 
to  miraculous  cures  of  a  late  date,  I  have  the 
most  respectable  attestation  of  several  of 
them,  and  I  am  well  acquainted  with  four  or 
five  persons  who  have  experienced  them.' 
'  In  those  processes  which  are  constantly  go- 
ing on  at  the  Apostolical  See,  for  the  canoni- 
zation of  new  saints,  fresh  miracles  of  a  re- 
cent date  continue  to  be  proved  with  the 
highest  degree  of  evidence,  as  I  can  testify 
from  having  perused,  on  the  spot,  the  official 
printed  account  of  some  of  them.'  He  some- 
times speaks  of  certain  Protestants  joining 
with  Papists  to  attest  these  miracles.  If  so, 
I  should  expect  them  to  swear  harder  than 
the  Papists,  as  Casaubon  was  more  zealous 
for  Popery  than  Thuanus.  But  the  main  wit- 
nesses to  whom  we  are  to  look  are  '  the  Ro- 
mish Church,'  as  Middleton  says  above,  and 
'the  Apostolical  See,'  as  Milner  says. 

Now  while  they  are  prosecuting  their  pro- 
cess of  canonization,  I  should  be  thankful  for 
the  liberty  of  conducting  a  process  of  cross- 
exa?nination.  Your  presence  and  that  of  Dr. 
Milner  would  be  very  acceptable.  My  first 
question  then,  would  be,  Do  you  receive  and 
believe  'the  legendaaurea  of  Jacobus  de  Vo- 
ragine,  the  Speculum  of  Vincentius  Bellua- 
censis,  the  Saints'  Lives  of  the  Patrician, 
Metaphrastes,  and  scores  of  similar  legends, 
stuffed  as  they  are,  with  relations  of  miracles 


S32 


of  every  description  ?'  Bishop  Milner  says, 
No.  Are  Papists  bound  to  believe  the  le- 
gends published  in  one  of  your  own  authentic 
ecclesiastical  standards, called  theBflEviARY? 
Mr.  Hughes  answers,  No:  though  you  will 
not  surprise  me  by  denying  this  answer,  as 
you  have  denied  your  sending  a  verbal  mes- 
sage to  your  Opponent.  If  we  can  ascertain 
the  merits  of  the  Breviary,  we  may  soon  con- 
jecture how  much  confidence  is  due  to  the 
assertions  or  denials  of  the  Romish  Priest- 
hood. 

The  Council  of  Trent,  in  the  continuation 
of  their  session  on  the  4th  day  of  December, 
1563,  ordered  this  Breviary,  along  with  their 
Catechism,  Missal,  and  Expurgatorial  Index, 
and  placed  it  upon  the  same  foundation  with 
them.  The  copy  which  is  now  before  me, 
published  in  1724,  was  *  Recognized  by  the 
authority  of  the  Supreme  Pontiffs,  Paul  V. 
and  Urban  VIII. ?  and  has  internal  evi- 
dence that  it  was  used  by  French  Roman  ec- 
clesiastics, until  the  Pope  came  to  Paris  to 
crown  his  beloved  son  Napoleon.  The  le- 
gends of  this  Breviary  are  accounts  of  mira- 
cles, authenticated  by  Middleton's  'Romish 
Church,'  and  Milner's  'Apostolical  See,'  in 
those  processes  of  canonization  by  which 
those  persons  whom  the  legends  celebrate, 
were  added  to  the  list  of  Saints. 

If  these  be  true,  then  we  must  believe  that 
some  of  your  saints  sailed  over  boisterous 
waters  in  no  other  vessel  than  a  cloth  cloak; 
another  hung  three  days  by  the  neck  without 
inconvenience;  another,  after  decollation, 
took  a  promenade  with  his  head  in  his  hands; 
another  raised  a  witness  from  the  dead  to 
establish  the  title  of  certain  church  lands, 
and  then  revived  himself,  after  being  cut  into 
mince  meat,  and  scattered  over  the  fields. 
Now  if  3'uu  are  not  prepared  to  swallow  these 
whole,  along  with  a  volume  of  similar  ones, 
what  becomes  of  Popish  saints,  Popish  mira- 
cles, Popish  veracity,  and  Popish  religion  ? 
If  these  legends  be  not  strictly  true,  then  the 
persons  of  whom  they  are  related  are  not 
saints,  because  it  was  upon  the  evidence  of 
these  miracles  regularly  and  unanswerably 
proved  in  the  process  before  the  Apostolical 
See,  that  they  were  canonized.  11  they  be 
not  true,  as  you  know  they  are  not,  then  the 
'  Romish  Church,'  and  the  '  Apostolical  See,' 
have  published  '  signs  and  lying  ivonders;'' 
and  as  they  have  put  them  into  a  religious 
standard,  and  a  book  of  daily  devotion,  they 
are  found  '  speaking  lies  in  hypocrisy.'  The 
same  thing  can  be  proved  abundantly,  with 
respect  to  your  Missal,  and  the  Catechism 
of  the  Council   of  Trent;  all  of  which  are 


of  the  highest  possible    authority   in    your 
church. 

If  you  cannot  believe  such  fables  upon  the 
authority  of  the  Pope  and  his  Cardinals,  how 
can  you  expect  us  to  believe  late  marvels, 
upon  the  word  of  Bisliop  Milner,  and  his 
parishioners?  If  your  written  standards  are 
stuffed  with  'five  hundred  enormous  false- 
hoods,' and  these  too  of  the  traditionary 
character,  how  can  you  expect  us  to  receive 
your  pretended  ancient  Liturgies,  which 
your  last  letter  confessed  '  were  not,  for  a 
long  time,  committed  to  writing  at  all:'  or 
how  can  you  expect  us  to  receive  any  of 
your  traditions,  as  an  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  on  a  footing  with  the  holy 
word  of  God,  who  cannot  lie?  Can  we  re- 
ceive as  infallible  interpreters  of  Scripture, 
those  who  corrupt  their  ecclesiastical  stan- 
dards with  falsehoods  which  they  cannot  be- 
lieve themselves. 

You  say  that  Papists  are  at  liberty  to  be- 
lieve these  legends  or  not  as  they  please: 
yes,  and  the  community  are  equally  at  liber- 
ty to  believe  or  not  to  believe  your  legend- 
ary calumnies  against*  Martin  Luther,  and 
your  opponent.  If  your  church  will  not  tell 
the  .truth  to  its  own  ministers  and  members, 
how  can  it  be  expected  to  keep  faith  with 
Heretics?  and  the  fact  of  their  utter  and  im- 
pious disregard  of  veracity  and  honesty, 
even  in  their  standards,  is  a  proof  of  the 
general,  deep,  and  horrible  immoralities  of 
your  Popes  and  Priests,  attested  by  77m- 
anus,  du  Pin,  and  Baroniits, ..jour  own  his- 
torians. As  to  the  revision  of  ecclesiastical 
formularies,  you  seem  frequently  and  great- 
ly amused  with  its  supposed  absurdity;  so 
that  your  falsehoods  are  incurable,  be- 
cause, like  quack  medicines,  they  are  infal 
lible. 

Through  the  kind  assistance  of  my  Heaven- 
ly Father  I  have  now  endeavoured  to  show 
that  it  is  not  the  champion  of  the  Protestant 
faith  who  has  retreated; — that  your  charges 
of  incompetency  arise  from  your  experience 
of  his  strength; — that  such  sorts  of  misma- 
nagement as  are  alleged  belong  more  proper- 
ly to  the  Popish  Advocate; — that  it  is  he 
who  is  wanting  in  courtesy; — that  he  wan- 
ders from  the  point; — that  he  adduces  spu- 
rious authorities, — vague  quotations, — per- 
versions,— corruptions, — and  falsehoods. 

I  shall  thank  you  to  correct  any  error  or 
mistake.  I  write  for  truth,  and  am  willing 
to  receive  it  from  any  quarter.  But  what- 
soever fault  you  may  find  with  me,  it  is  im- 
possible that  you  can  be  right.  You  profess 
to  believe  in  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  and 


324 


the  infallibility  of  the  church,  and  yet  you 
refuse  to  acknowledge  and  believe  the  Index 
and  Breviary  which  tliey  have  made  obliga- 
tory. Or  if  you  believe  in  these  instruments 
of  oppression  and  persecution,  and  these 
chronicles  of  'lying  wonders,'  you  show 
yourself  the  enemy  of  light  and  liberty,  of 
truth  and  righteousness.  May  Gnd  open 
your  eyes  and  those  of  your  deluded  follow- 
ers, through  the  Spirit  of  Jesus. 

W.  L.  M 'CALL A. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 
(No.  1.) 
Philadelphia,  September  19th,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — When  I  accepted  your  offer  of  a  public 
controversy,  I  proposed  to  you  the  alternative  of 
a  connected  discussion  in  successive  volumes,  or 
of  a  public  oral  debate.  You  declined  both  of  these 
however;  and  after  much  difficulty  and  delay  the 
present  plan  was  finally  adopted,  under  a  limita- 
tion of  six  months.  The  reason  of  this  limitation 
was  the  nature  of  my  present  occupation  which 
requires  me  to  be  absent  from  home,  a  greater 
part  of  the  year.  By  the  indulgence  of  the  Board 
of  Education  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in 
whose  service  I  am  engaged,  I  was  enabled  to 
add  two  months  to  the  six  already  devoted  to 
you.  These  have  now  expired ;  and  my  duty 
imperatively  calls  me  to  leave  the  city  and  travel 
at  large  through  the  country  for  several  months. 

As  I  am  very  solicitous  however  to  continue 
and  complete  this  Controversy,  I  now  propose 
to  you  a  public  oral  discussion  of  the  remaining 
topics  as  soon  after  my  return  as  may  be  conve- 
nient for  the  parties.  In  this  way,  and  in  this 
alone,  we  can  in  a  few  successive  days  investi- 
gate every  subject  which  it  may  be  desirable  to 
discuss.  I  now  claim  this  arrangement,  not  only 
as  due  to  me  in  justice,  but  in  the  exercise  of 
that  choice  which  you  conceded  to  me  in  your 
note  of  August  1st,  (See  Appendix  to  Letter  No. 
XXVIII.)  w here  you  say  "you  will  have  it  in 
your  power  to  fix  the  limitation,  when  and  where 
you  may  deem  it  convenient."  I  now  fix  it  on 
the  Rostrum,  before  the  American  people.  If 
you  decline  this  proposal  in  view  of  the  above 
facts,  it  must  be  considered  as  the  expression  of 
a  desire  to  retire  from  the  defence  of  your  cause. 

An  early  and  explicit  answer  is  requested. 
I  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 

P.  S.  You  will  be  so  kind  as  to  receive  the 
bearer,  the  Rev.  William  L.  M'Calla  as  fully  au- 
thorized by  me  to  negotiate  the  proposals  of  this 
letter,  and  all  things  connected  with  it,  or  result- 
ing from  it.  J.  B. 

(No.  20 
To  the  Rev.  Mr.  Breckinridge. 

Dear  Sir, — A  few  minutes  after  we  parted  on  J 
yesterday,  I  had  it  in  my  power  to  present  to  Mr.  | 


Hughes  your  letter  inviting  him  to  discuss  on  the 
rostrum  those  subjects  which  have  for  some  months 
occupied  you  in  the  press.  He  declined  a  written 
answer,  but  made  me  his  authorized  reporter.  He 
referred  to  a  letter  of  his  preliminary  to  the  pre- 
sent controversy;  to  the  contents  of  which  he  still 
adheres.  The  following  are  the  words  of  that 
letter,  viz.  "  If  yon"  prefer  an  oral  discussion  un- 
der the  guidance  of  these  rules,  let  it  be  in  the 
presence  of  twelve  enlightened  gentlemen,  neither 
Catholics  nor  Presbyterians;  and  again  I  am 
ready.  But  I  cannot  consent  to  exhibit  myself  as 
a  theological  gladiator,  for  the  amusement  of  an 
idle,  promiscuous,  curious  multitude."  In  expla- 
nation Mr.  Hughes  spoke  of  these  twelve  judges 
as  composing  a  jury,  whose  province  it  should  be 
to  make  decisions  far  more  important  than  on 
mere  points  of  order. 

From  a  recent  correspondence  about  the  conti- 
nuance of  the  Controversy,  your  letter  of  yester- 
day quoted  Mr.  Hughes's  words  empowering  you 
to  decide  that  matter  liwhen  and  ivhere  you  may 
deem  it  convenient."  Without  deciding  upon  the 
when,  you  deemed  it  convenient  that  the  ivhere 
should  be  on  the  rostrum.  This,  Mr.  Hughes 
says,  is  a  misunderstanding  of  his  words;  he 
meant  that  you  might  close*  the  discussion  at 
whatsoever  time,  and  in  whatsoever  stage  of  the 
Controversy  you  might  choose.  He  observed  that 
he  should,  if  alive,  feel  bound  to  resume  it,  if,  on 
your  return  to  the  city,  you  should  intimate  such 
a  desire. 

I  was  a  little  importunate  in  a  request  that  he 
would  commit  these  things  to  paper;  but  he  would 
not  consent.  I  observed  that  I  was  cheerfully  at 
the  service  of  the  parties  in  this  matter  while  it 
might  be  necessary. 
Yours, 

W.  L.  M'CALLA. 
Philada.  Sept.  20,  1833. 

(No.  3.) 

Philada.  Sept.  21,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes. 

I  have  received  with  extreme  regret  your  verbal 
reply  to  my  letter  of  the  19th  inst.  in  which  you 
wholly  decline  my  proposal  to  finish  the  pending 
Controversy  in  a  public  oral  discussion. 

In  existing  circumstances,  therefore,  my  letter 
of  the  25th  will  close  the  Controversy,  until  my 
return  from  the  tours  incident  to  my  office,  at  the 
present  season  of  the  year.  If,  however,  you  de- 
sire its  unbroken  continuance,  I  offer  to  you  as  a 
substitute  (according  to  your  own  suggestion,  in 
view  of  possible  interruptions  on  my  part)  the 
Rev.  William  L.  M'Calla  during  my  absence.  If 
Providence  permit  my  return,  as  I  hope,  after 
some  weeks,  I  shall  be  prepared,  and  disposed  to. 
resume  the  discussion  in  such  a  way  as  may  be 
agreed  upon  between  us.  And  I  hereby  assure 
you  that  nothing  shall  hinder  me  (if  God  permit) 
from  bringing  this  whole  subject  before  the  Ame- 
rican people. 

I  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 


:t*j 


.» 


(No.  4.) 

To  the  Rev.  Mr.  Breckinridge.  , 

Dear  Sir, — Your  letter  of  to  day  was  handed  to 
Mr.  Hughes  a  few  minutes  ago.  He  promised  to 
send  you  a  written  answer  before  10  o'clock  on 
Monday  next.  He  persevered  in  claiming  the 
light  to  answer  your  last  letter;  and  declared  that 
he  would  not  recognize  any  substitute  in  your  ab- 
sence, and  of  course  would  not  notice  any  reply 
which  I  might  make  to  his  letter.  My  desire  was 
to  keep  out  of  the  Controversy;  and  if  your  journey 
shall  claim  only  one  letter  from  me,  my  wish  is 
very  nearly  gratified. 

Yours, 

W.  L.  M'CALLA. 
Philada.  Sept.  21,  1833. 


(No.  5.) 

Philad.  Sept.  23d,  1833. 

To  the  Rev,  John  Breckinridge. 

ReV.  Sir, — In  reply  to  your  letters  of  the  19th 
and  20th  Inst.  I  have  to  inform  you  that  I  see  no 
reason  why  We  should  depart  from  the  form  and 
medium  of  Controversy  which  we  have  used  hi- 
therto, and  which  was  agreed  upon  between  us 
after  mature  deliberation  arid  repeated  conferences. 
It  is  unnecessary  here  to  state  the  reasons  that  in- 
duced me  to  prefer  conducting  the  Controversy  in 
the  form  of  letters,  nor  will  the  public  be  at  a  loss 
to  divine  your  motives  for  now  declining  that 
mode,  as  it  must  be  evident  that  in  an  oral  discus- 
sion, you  would  have  the  opportunity  of  quoting 
authorities  in  a  manner  to  suit  your  own  purpose, 
when  it  would  not  be  in  the  power  of  your  oppo- 
nent to  detect  and  expose  you,  as  has  been  suc- 
cessfully done  in  a  variety  of  instances.  It  would 
seem  as  if  you  considered  yourself  justified  in 
overturning  our  rules  and  regulations  in  globo, — 
having  contrived  to  evade  and  violate  them  in  de- 
tail, during  the  progress  of  the  Controversy.  But, 
Sir,  I  am  not  to  be  made  a  party  to  such  proceed- 
ing. It  was  through  the  press  you  first  assailed 
the  Catholic  church.  Through  the  press  you  cir- 
culated your  memorable  challenge  to  "Priests 
and  Bishops."  Through  the  press  I  have,  thus 
far,  successfully  exposed  your  incompetency  to 
defend  your  cause,  except  by  misrepresentations 
of  doctrines  or  perversions  of  authorities — and 
through  the  press  I  shall  continue  to  submit  the 
case  to  the  judgment  of  a  discerning  and  enlight- 
ened public,  until  the  final  close  of  the  Contro- 
versy. If  your  business  carry  you  abroad,  you 
are  free  to  discontinue  when  you  please,  and  to 
resume  when  you  may  find  it  convenient  to  do  so. 
But  you  must  not  deprive  me  of  my  right  to  re- 
turn the  arrow  which  jrou  shoot — in  retreating. 
When  you  return,  you  may  resume  the  contest, 
and  I  shall  be  prepared  to  receive  you. 

In  the  mean  time  I  have  to  assure  you  that  I 
have  not  sent  any  "  verbal  reply"  to  either  of  your 
letters. 

Yours,  &c. 

JOHN  HUGHES. 


(No.  c.) 

Philadelphia,  Sept.  28,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  John  Hughes, 

Sir, — I  have  received  your  answer  of  the  23d, 
to  my  communication  of  the  21st ;  and  have  also 
seen  your  note  to  the  publishers  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian asserting  your  purpose  to  reply  to  my  Letter 
No.  34.  It  is  difficult  for  me  tell  you,  how  pain- 
ful it  is  to  me,  on  the  point  of  my  departure,  to 
see  you  pursuing  so  unworthy  a  course  ;  or  to 
frame  an  apology  for  it.  As  you  wrote  the  first 
letter  in  the  series,  so  it  is  clearly  my  place,  as 
respondent  to  write  the  last.  Yet  you  insist  on 
writing  the  last  as  well  as  the  first.  If  it  re- 
quires two  of  your  letters  to  answer  one  of  mine, 
then  can  any  one  be  at  a  loss  to  draw  the  infer- 
ence ]  What  renders  your  desperate  condition 
still  more  apparent  is,  that  you  seek  the  exercise 
of  so  unjust  an  advantage  at  the  moment  of  my 
departure,  and  not  only  insist  on  a  supernumerary 
letter,  but  Would  deny  me  the  right  of  responding 
to  it,  even  through  a  friend — while  necessary  ab- 
sence renders  it  impossible  for  me  to  do  it  in 
person,-  while  yet  you  first  suggested  this  very  ar- 
rangement in  view  of  my  possible  interruptions  ; 
and  while,  with  the  resolution  of  despair,  you  re- 
fuse to  meet  me  on  the  Rostrum.  When  you 
charge  me  with  seeking  an  oral  debate  that  I 
may  shun  your  examination,  and  exposure  of  my 
authorities,  you  forget  that  a  cart-load  of 'authori- 
ties,' might  attend  each  of  us  to  the  stage ;  and  that 
this  will  be  the  very  place  to  confront  and  expose 
false  references.  I  am  so  accustomed  to  the  lan- 
guage of  insult  from  you  that  it  now  passes  me, 
with  no  other  emotion  but  pity,  and  regret  that  I 
am  constrained,  to  sustain  a  Controversy  with  one 
who  defends  his  cause  at  the  expense  of  his  char- 
acter. Your  praise  might  now  appear  almost  a 
reason  for  self-examination  ;  and  while  I  can  ap- 
peal to  God,  and  my  country  for  my  character, 
and  to  your  own  monuments  for  the  truth  of  all 
my  citations,  I  shall  continue  to  construe  your 
personal  attacks,  as  the  last  struggles  of  a  "sys- 
tem which  has  ceased  to  be  defended  by  argu- 
ment and  truth.  My  reasons  for  proposing  a 
public  debate  were  these.  I  desired  from  the 
very  first  a  discussion  which  could  be  presented 
in  a  body,  (as  in  a  book)  that  all  our  arguments 
njight  rapidly,  and  together,  be  examined  and  re- 
viewed. But  for  this  you  proposed  to  substitute 
the  columns  of  a  daily  newspaper  ! 

The  next  best  form  and  the  nearest  approach  to 
the  former,  is  a  public  debate.  This,  besides 
passing  before  our  hearers  in  a  few  days,  tho 
whole  matter  of  controversy,  might  be  speedily 
finished,  and  then  allow  me  room  for  other  du- 
ties which  call  me  much  abroad.  Either  of 
these  methods  is  better  suited  to  both  these  ends, 
than  a  protracted  newspaper  discussion,  which 
may  become  interminable,  and  affords  to  you  the 
occasion  of  incessant  evasions.  On  the  Rostrum 
I  could  bring  you  to  the  point,  and  confront  you 
before  the  people,  where  cowards  lose  their  shel- 
ter, sophists  their  veil,  and  Jesuits  their  power 
to  dally  and  deceive. 

Being  now,  in  the  providence  of  God  called 


320 


away  for  a  season,  as  you  insist  on  still  another 
letter,  I  must  leave  you  under  the  care  of  my  gal- 
lant friend,  during  my  absence.  I  shall  request 
him  to  do  no  more  than  is  necessary,  in  replying 
to  your  forth-coming  letter,  if  you  persist  in  so 
unjust  an  act. 

In  closing  this  communication,  I  beg  you  to 
bear  in  mind,  that  your  fond  hope  of  my  "  re- 
treat," cannot  be  realized,  however  consoling 
such  an  event  might  be  to  you,  at  the  present 
crisis.  In  the  existing  posture  of  the  discussion, 
I  can  scarcely  believe  that  any  one  (much  less 
yourself,)  will  construe  my  absence  into  "a  re- 
treat," especially  when  our  first  arrangements 
were  made  in  view  of  that  absence,  and  when  I 
spontaneously  added  two  months  to  the  six  origi- 
nally fixed  on  as  the  limit  of  the  Controversy. 
1  hope  however  soon  to  have  it  in  my  power  to 
give  a  practical  refutation  to  so  uncandid  and 
false  a  charge.  If  my  life  should  be  continued 
by  a  merciful  God,  I  shall  promptly  be  at  hand, 
prepared  to  press  the  discussion  to  its  legitimate 
close,  in  any  form  consistent  with  my  present 
mode  of  life,  whether  on  the  Rostrum,  or  in  per- 
manent volumes,  or  in  the  weekly  papers,  either 
with  you  or  without  you. 

I  remain,  yours,  &c. 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 

(No.  7.) 
Office  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
Philadelphia,  Oct.  2d,  1833. 
To  the  Rev.  W.  L.  M'Calla. 

My  Dear  Brother, — On  the  eve  of  my  departure 
from  the  city  I  address  you  a  few  lines  to  say, 
that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  has  determined  to 
write,  in  my  absence,  a  supernumerary  letter,  and 
ihat  the  Editor  of 'The  Presbyterian,' to  avoid 


even  the  appearance  of  taking  any  advantage,  ha9 
consented  to  insert  it.  I  need  not  here  make  any 
comments  on  a  course  so  unjust  and  ungenerous, 
as  that  pursued  by  Mr.  Hughes.  He  has  known 
the  necessity  of  my  absence  for  many  months, 
and  has  agreed  heretofore  to  a  suspension  of  the 
Controversy  when  it  became  necessary.  The 
reason  of  his  determination  to  write  again,  cannot 
be  the  injustice  which  will  be  done  to  him  by 
suspending  the  Controversy  at  this  stage — for 
after  he  writes  he  must  see  that  tenfold  injustice 
will  be  done  to  me ;  since  he  will  then  have  writ- 
ten the  first  letter  and  the  last.  The  community 
therefore  cannot  fail  to  fix  upon  the  true  and  the 
only  reason  in  the  case,  which  is  the  condition  of 
the  question,  at  this  time. 

It  is  very  probable  that  his  letter  may  require 
no  reply;  for  he  has  given  us  little  "  new  matter'''' 
lately.  But  I  have  to  request  that  you  will  repre- 
sent me  in  my  absence;  ami  reply  to  his  letter,  if 
you  think  it  necessary.  Allow  me  to  add,  that  al- 
though I  know  full  well  your  superior  qualifications 
for  ably  defending  our  common  and  precious  faith, 
yet  as  God  in  his  holy  providence  has  called  me 
to  begin  this  discussion,  it  is  my  earnest  wish  to 
close  it  also ;  and  therefore  I  have  to  beg  that  you 
will  do  no  more  than  meet  the  exigency  occasioned 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes'  attack  in  my  absence. 
I  hope  soon  to  resume  my  place  in  the  discussion. 
But  if  I  should  be  called  by  God  to  leave  the 
world  before  I  return,  I  bequeath  to  you  the  com- 
pletion of  a  Controversy  on  which  many  eyes  are 
fastened,  and  many  solemn  and  dear  interests 
suspended ;  and  in  regard  to  which  my  only 
source  of  regret  has  been,  my  insufficiency  for  so 
great  and  glorious  a  service. 

I  remain  yours,  in  the  best  bonds, 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 


°"  Theological  Semmary-Speer  L 


1    1012  01056  6992 


Date  Due 

facujji 

■:-mmmwt- 

i  *, 

^u^cty 

%n& 

*;>,'■* 

! 

^feStb. 

f> 

